Human Cloning is a universal phrase, giving a description of any procedure that creates or manufactures a precise genetic imitation of a biological object, together with a DNA sequence, a cell, or an organism.
However, elementary consistencies like genes and cells have been cloned by Scientists for years. Currently, great quantities of regular biological research and many great significances or value of pharmaceutical submissions rely on this sort of cloning, which engage as a participant a few of the principled quandaries demonstrated by the cloning of human beings and higher animals (Wilson & Kass, 1998).
Consequently, when discussing the debate on human cloning, there are several issues that should be discussed. The maxims and logical consequence of human life should be given priority in discussion as well as questioning. One major thing is to establish whether the product of human cloning will be a person or a just piece of property. Nevertheless, a CNN poll carried out in America shows that 90% of Americans are opposed to human cloning.
This practicable application of science would make it potential to create humans by cloning as well as gradually converting the biological human reproduction into a manufacturing prolongation or projection where genetically designed babies are made in laboratories. As we discuss human cloning, ethics should also be included.
Hansen, B. (2006). “Cloning Debate.” CQ Press 14.37. CQ Researcher. Paul A. Elsner Library, Mesa, AZ.
The overall picture of human cloning is vastly presented by this Author. His opinions are gathered from various scientists and researchers. The absolute majority of them back up with evidence or authority therapeutic cloning and stem cell research, asserting diseases would be cured by using stem cells obtained from cloned embryos.
Nonetheless, the scientists opposed reproductive cloning claiming that the practice undermines the uniqueness of humankind and that it is unethical to put the lives of clones in a condition of being susceptible to harm or injury due to the high failure rate of cloning.
However, advocates of reproductive cloning perceive or think about it as a remedial way of helping infertile couples to have their own children. Hansen also gives an account of the views of some critics, on the other hand who are, denying or questioning the tenets of the viability of stem cell psychoanalysis, as shown by evidence that an immunological response that refuses to accept substances or organisms that are recognized as foreign would still occur even if using genetically identical stem cells for transplantation.
Moreover, it is morally wrong to bring into existence and then destroy human embryos just for scientific experiments. Other critics also argue that therapeutic cloning would inevitably lead to reproductive cloning; therefore, it is crucial that both types of cloning should be banned.
Hayes, R. (2002) “Break the cloning Deadlock.” Retrieved from Christian Science Monitor.
Hayes stated categorically that “people in an intuitive manner appreciates that bringing into existence a child by cloning would be a deliberately offensive act to human dignity and individuality, would dole out no good principle, and should be banned.”
On the other hand, therapeutic cloning enables biomedical scientists to do research on using embryonic stem cells for treatments; he is confident that it would be a better idea to put into consideration tough rules and regulations to scrutinize the practice as an alternative to a ban on such potentially beneficial research. He also suggests that in case of legalization of therapeutic cloning, some requirements should be included in the rules.
Though, Hayes did not in an explicit manner express his personal belief or judgment, but he converged on a point of the importance of striking regulations to control and monitor the practice of therapeutic cloning. In his final paper, this is the main point he enclosed
Scott, T. R., and Ron S. (2006). “Human Cloning.” Truthtree.
The authors of this article advocated for both reproductive and therapeutic cloning, as opposed to the other sources. Scott and Savori took to be true that there should be no laws to ban any kind of human cloning or related research, as human cloning does added well than harm.
They argue that it is flawlessly fine to clone reproductively basically because bringing into existence a human clone is just like bearing an identical twin on purpose. Scott and Savori further asserted that it is not easy to anticipate the gains of new scientific advances unless efforts are made to research into them. The idea that getting despite difficulties or obstacles stem cells from embryos equals killing a becoming human being is deemed wrong or inappropriate by them, since they contend that embryo are not conscious.
The authors of this article are two engineers who lack special knowledge or ability to perform skilfully in the science field. These claims are declared without scientific proof but just based on their own justification.
After examining and contrasting ways of regarding situations or topics from different sources, I have an accurately stated or described picture of the issue, which has made it possible for me to draw a conclusion.
Obviously, the vast majority is in agreement that reproductive cloning, which can only help a small group, is immoral and causes danger or risks and should be outlawed. Therapeutic cloning, however, is more worthy of acceptance or satisfactory as it is a medical breakthrough that can potentially treat a wide range of illnesses that are incapable of being cured currently suffered by millions of people.
In talking about ethics, the essential constituent dignity of the individual should be made of great significance or value since part of human dignity is the distinctiveness of that human.
Human dignity involves also the special treatment to human beings as human beings and humans should not be treated in any other way except to be treated as humans. Cloning live humans have a requirement for the artificial assembly of cloned human embryos that would be investigated on and having succeeded or being marked by a favourable outcome would become the adult human clone.
Consequently, If cloned human embryos will be judged, regarded or looked on as humans then it will be a deep expression of lack of respect for human life to carry on with the human cloning practice has given that this act of conducting a controlled test or investigation of human cloning would engage as a participant the formation and destruction of human embryos on a substantial degree.
However, this manner of dealing with of human embryos as being formed, manufactured and destroyed to progress the human cloning research is an utter refusal to acknowledge human dignity as humans are regarded or considered in a specific way as test subjects and as something that is subject to variation for experiments. Cloning, for whatever reasons that there may be should not be practised for human purposes.
Arguments that are opposed to the human cloning development would connect closely the ethical effects with detail or point to its hazardous practice and of its contravention of human dignity, and the harm that it would encompass on the live clones. The fact or assertion offered as evidence will be restricted to the principled consequences and would not think moodily or anxiously into the spiritual entailment of the situation or event that is thought about.