Human Cloning - Research Paper Example

Al Mutlaq Abeer Al Mutlaq EN 090 November 23rd, 2007 Human Cloning A boon or a bane is what human cloning is all about, which makes it one of themost controversial subjects ever discussed in modern society. The argument as to whether cloning is beneficial or unethical continues to be a hot topic for discussion even today. The term “Human Cloning” is used to refer to a method used by scientists to create an imprint, or a replica of an individual by using the DNA (Deoxyribonucleic acid) from his own body. DNA is nothing but the genetic make up of an individual that portrays his/her essential characteristics. There is an interesting point in history that dates back to when cloning began; a bill was presented to the US Senate in 1997 with the intention of making cloning a Federal offence ( www.stedward.edu), though this bill was never issued in the end because of various petitions from recognized science scholars. Then on February 23 rd, 1997, a Al Mutlaq…..2 controversial global stir took place. A Scottish doctor named Dr. Ian Wilmut cloned a sheep who he called “Dolly” which was a major success. But it didn’t make sense to the then US President Bill Clinton, who perceived it as a horrible accomplishment. In lieu of such a situation, he was supposed to have “"ordered a widespread ban on the federal funding of human cloning in the US" (www.stedward.edu). This "epidemic" began to cause an uproar among the various religious groups who thought that cloning should not be legalized because they felt that this was overstepping human boundaries. In the midst of the debate over whether human cloning was to be allowed or banned, people across the world were still investigating this process and trying out different procedures. In 1998 Japan cloned "eight calves from a single adult cows DNA. They used techniques similar to that which produced "Dolly" (www.stedwards.edu ). Though human cloning continues to be a controversial subject, something very interesting about DNA was being discovered through an animal cloning process. Scientists "who cloned "Dolly" discovered that her cells were six years older than her chronological age. The cell that was used to fertilize the sheep ovum that became Dolly came from an adult female sheep, aged six years. Apparently, cells have an internal mechanism that keeps track of its age" (www.stedwards.edu) Cloning continues to be debated, and it may never become Al Mutlaq…..3 universally accepted due to its controversial nature. Should human cloning be allowed? Or should cloning be forbidden? The answer is simple: human cloning should be forbidden for several reasons that address issues of religious beliefs, concepts of individuality, and concepts of human dignity .This paper will focus on various arguments against human cloning as well as various arguments in favor of human cloning and finally my own argument and opinion against human cloning. Liberal Eugenics: In Defence of Human Enhancement by Nicolas Agar; Agar starts off with describing about the scientific knowledge that people have today, what the author calls enhancement technologies, Such as cloning by somatic cells nuclear transfer and IVF with pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) would allow parents to choose their children’s characteristics. According to Agar, it is primarily manipulations, like the provision of additional academic tuition, music lessons, sports…and the like, which is used to increase children’s future opportunities. Additional copies of the GLU or IGF-1 genes are unlikely to turn children of average intelligence or physical prowess into geniuses or world-class sports men/women, but nevertheless they may enhance such characteristics in those possessing innate abilities. In addition to this, Agar points out that it is most Al Mutlaq…..4 likely that those with money to pay, will benefit from this technology. Agar also raises the subject of possible use of this technology which could be utilized to eradicate racism and homophobia by manipulating the genes that control skin color and sexual orientation. Agar, argues in favor of human cloning. He brings forward his argument through current events to convey his opinion to the reader. Agar simplifies all the medical information, to make it easier for the reader to understand and acknowledge the information and also to motivate and persuade the readers who come from different social background, age, and academic levels. Another strategy Agar uses is the positive outlook. He mentions how human cloning can help parents with their children, giving it a more general outlook Agar makes the reader look at human cloning as a way to construct an easier lifestyle for people. Testimony in favor of legislation of ban on human cloning in Missouri by Wesley J. Smith; J. Smith bring into play five different arguments: he starts off with Abortion irrelevant: one of the most unfortunate aspects of the cloning debate is that the media have often confused these issues with the burning controversy over abortion. Whether one agrees or disagrees with abortion, is not of importance but just for the reason that it is legal is that the courts have determined that a woman should not be forced to do with her body that which she does not wish to do. But in the issues of human cloning, there is no woman being forced to do anything with her body. Thus, J. Smith states that any references to abortion or the politics of abortion are, in his view, entirely misplaced. Al Mutlaq…..5 The decision whether or not to outlaw human cloning should be judged on its own merits and not be viewed through a distorting abortion prism. The second point that J. Smith mentions is that human cloning creates a new human life: It is often discussed by cloning proponents that we outlaw “reproductive cloning” but permit “therapeutic cloning” (somatic nuclear transfer). This implies that there is one kind of cloning for reproduction and another kind for research, and that the embryos created for different cloning purposes are somehow different biologically. Once the cloning process has been completed, a new human organism will come into being. Thereafter, there are no further acts of cloning. J. Smith puts down his arguments in points which make his ideas clear for the reader to comprehend. In yet another of J. Smith arguments, he employs medical operations, for example abortion and why should that be acceptable and human cloning should not because both need to be accepted by the person doing the operation; In his second argument he talks about the truth of the matter, which is the approval of reproductive cloning or therapeutic cloning because according to him they are both the same if one really looks deep into it. J. Smith uses knowledge to persuade the reader even if the reader did not have a knowledgeable background on the topic of human cloning, they may be persuaded by the way J. Smith structures his ideas in convincing them. He utilizes common, logical and persuasive language while constructing strong support for his arguments. Al Mutlaq…..6 Coming Down to Earth on Cloning: An Eco-feminist Analysis of Homophobia in the Current Debate by Victoria Davion; In Davion’s argument she brings to question: Is cloning natural? She appeals to “our intuition” that cloning is “unnatural” and runs rampant in the cloning debate. Davion presents an example according to James Q. Wilson, formerly of the National Bioethics Advisory Board (NBAC), which recommended a temporary moratorium on cloning in 1997, “There is a natural sentiment that is offended by the mental picture of identical twin babies being produced in some biological factory”( quoted in Wachbroit 1997,6). Q. Wilson argues with the point above when he says that this so-called “natural sentiment” is in reality a socially constructed “intuition” that has often been used to further highly homophobic political agendas. Presenting an example to that Wilson mentions that many are concerned that the process of cloning in “unnatural” because it creates a zygote in a method radically different from sexual reproduction, which is viewed as “natural”, Wilson advocates that perhaps the idea that babies should only be produced through some kind of heterosexual coupling is the “natural” sentiment that Wilson feels cloning violates. Another objection Wilson briefly discusses is that of being against human cloning from a religious point of view. Davion then mentions the Vatican to set straight on Wilson’s argument of religious groups’ and argues against human cloning. Vatican’s 1987 Donum Vitae (Respect for life) stated, “Attempts or hypothesis for obtaining a human Al Mutlaq…..7 being without any connection with sexuality through ‘twin fission,’ cloning, or parthenogenesis are to be considered contrary to the moral law, since they are in opposition to the dignity of human procreation and of the conjugal union”. The Vatican implies that it is useful to note that the “dignity” of the conjugal union has also been a key factor in arguments against gay and lesbian marriage. These religious objections can be seen as part of the same worldview that is also suspicious of contraception. Nothing is to interfere with the “divine” process of creating human life. “Divine” processes are to be left alone and the results of them are to be accepted. Victoria Davion, proves her argument by stating others opinions, to persuade her readers how wrong and unnatural human cloning is for people due to religious reasons. Language and values in the human cloning debate: A web-based survey of scientists and Christian fundamentalist pastors was conducted by Lisa H. Weasel & Eric Jensen; Weasel & Jensen first point is about the role of scientists and Christian fundamentalists in the human cloning debate, which generated a heated debate, particularly among religious communities opposed to attempts to ‘Play God’. Weasel & Eric did a survey on what people feel about human cloning and also their point of view on Reproductive versus therapeutic cloning: One of the points that Weasel & Jensen discussed was the therapeutic potential of cloning. One of the answers they got was : ‘I have mixed feelings about the help it may give us in finding cures to diseases, but that is still out-weighted by the fact that we are not God and cannot create Al Mutlaq…..8 life’. Both Weasel and Jensen affirm that a large majority of pastor respondents rejected reproduction human cloning, most vehemently because according to them it goes against the will of God and is a direct attempt to usurp God’s role as a creator. Another response that Weasel & Jensen received was that they decried human cloning as ‘another attempt by the scientific community to be a god-like entity’ while another dismissed it as ‘Arrogance… the heart of mankind replacing the creator and worshipping the creature’ and a third warned that cloning ‘was a role that God never intended for us to fill’. Even one of the responses to Weasel and Eric’s survey was about the acknowledgement of potential therapeutic application in the pastors description of human cloning that urged caution; ‘ I know that God allows us advances in technology, but we must be careful as to what we do with them’. Weasel & Eric uses a different kind of persuasion by giving the reader the answers of their survey; In this way they used certain answers which they felt would pose good arguments in persuading a person to be against human cloning. At the same time each idea comes from the same family which is religion but each answer focuses in a certain area. My Personal Opinion on Cloning: In my opinion human cloning should be forbidden for three core reasons - My primary argument involves religious beliefs. There are many religious groups like that of the Christians and Muslims who staunchly oppose human cloning. This Al Mutlaq…..9 disagreement is in the thoughtful respect for the laws of nature that reflect the world of God. I believe as well that human cloning crosses over into forbidden territory; the territory where only God should be. If scientists achieve something like human cloning then what difference do they have from God? God has created humankind making each person so unique. It is this uniqueness is what makes us different from each other. If all of us looked alike, we would lose our individuality which for me would be very absurd. Having people who are very different from each other by way of color, race, personality traits, habits and background is what makes the world very interesting. I really believe that “Variety is the spice of life” and I would definitely not want someone to look just like me. I prefer to be a unique person and in the same way I prefer others to also be unique. The second argument is based on the concepts of individuals; Cloning definitely breaches a fundamental right to individuality and by allowing cloning, humanity would be in total confusion because they would be wondering who is who. The very concept of individuality would be lost. The concept of individuality is that an individual owns their own physical appearance, style, mannerisms, personality and character. If cloning was allowed all these wonderful traits would be lost and forgotten. The concept of individuality is one of the most cherished, and valuable significance of self. Just as a new artist is expected to always come up with new ideas and creativity to keep up with the evolution of humankind, so also human beings can be thought of as losing their essential individuality in the reproduction of themselves. If there is a primary, Al Mutlaq…..10 fundamental right to individuality, then undeniably human cloning would violate that right. My third argument concerns the concepts of human dignity. Considering human cloning, one of the most common ethic objections to human cloning is the dignity of an individual. Dignity can be established and understood in different ways; one of the reasons that human cloning can be looked at without dignity is because another human, a scientist in this case controls Various arguments in opposition to and in favor of human cloning continue in heated debates, but Currently, it appears that the majority are opposed to human cloning and I am proud to be one among them. Al Mutlaq…..10 Work cited: Agar, Nicholas, Liberal Eugenics: In Defence of Human Enhancement. Blackwell Publishing. Academic Search Premier, AUP Library, Paris. 01November.07. www.blackwellpublishing.com Weasel, Lisa& Jensen, Eric, “Language and values in the human cloning debate: a wed- based survey of Christian fundamentalist pastors;” Apr2005, Vol. 24 Issue 1, p1-14, 14p. Academic Search Premier, AUP Library, Paris. 19 November. 07 http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=7&hid=8&sid=c64549b0-cc74-43cf-bdc7-2a04aabe2084%40sessionmgr7 Davion, Victoria, “Coming Down to Earth on Cloning: An Ecofeminist Analysis of Homophobia in the Current Debate;” Fall2006, Vol. 21 Issue 4, p58-76, 19p. Academic Search Premier, AUP Library, Paris. 01 November. 07 http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=6&hid=8&sid=c64549b0-cc74-43cf-bdc7-2a04aabe2084%40sessionmgr7 Wesley J. Smith, “Testimony in favor of legislation to ban human cloning in Missouri;” http://www.stemcellresearch.org/testimony/2005-02-01-smith.pdf Read More