Human Clone Ethics
Most people think they know what cloning is. They would define it,probably, as taking a piece of one plant or animal and using it to makeanother just like it. In fact, Brannigan points out that the term "clone"was very likely first used in botany to describe the process of budding.(12) He also notes that Webster's digital dictionary explains that theword is from the Greek kion, which means "twig." Current uses of the term include scientifically oriented ones;scientists use the term to describe asexual reproduction of an identicalcopy of an organism, and is something that happens naturally in bacteria,algae, plants and yeast. In addition, it is the method by which the humanbody grows and repairs itself, although higher life forms gave it up as areproductive method 500 million years ago, leaving it to only thoseprimitive organism mentioned. (Brannigan, 12) Considering that "cloning" is a natural activity taking place in ourbodies every day-when we get a cut, grow some hair and so on-and has been afactor of reproduction for a minimum of 501 million years, why is there adebate at all' If it is a natural process, why shouldn't humans have the
Few philosophers apparently are ready to come down firmly on one sideof the issue or the other as yet. He isthankful for the donor family's generous act, and he ponders whether hecould have done the same, or whether, in fact, he would have accepted partsform an animal or human clone if they had been available. If this weird means of asexual reproduction of an entire mammalworked, how long before it was applied to humans' People feared allscientists would be clones of the great ones, all basketball players wouldbe Michael Jordan clones or similar, except younger. God,being a totality of every trait, every possibility, is the aim. Still, Kamm is firmly onthe side of continuing with the science and seeking ways to regulate theprocess so that moral/ethical disasters do not happen; she believes,philosophically, that the good embryo research and 'cloning' can do faroutweigh the moral dilemmas. The girl survived because of a transplant from a young ma who haddied when he lost control of his dirt bike at a county fair. Frances Kamm, professor of philosophy atNew York University, has laid out several main issues to be solved from aphilosophical point of view. And, in fact, Cohen and Tompkins, cited inBrannigan, point out that cloning cannot currently be used to producemultiple copies of humans. One hopes that all branches of clergy wererepresented, since this quasi-government body acting on behalf of theleader of the population made a universal moral declaration, which, infact, brings up the possibility that the council's very mission trampled onthe separation of church and state. (Shannon, 111) Shannon further notes that holdingsuch positions denies any transcendent dimension, for which he seems tomean spirituality or divine life force. Riddell notes that although opponents make a great deal of theremorse of the scientists who invented the atom bomb because of itsdevastating effects, she things they shouldn't have been surprised. Toscientists, who see it as simply part of their job, there is no debateabout doing it, although there is some about how far it should go. A scientist might havestated in 1880 that we would never walk on the moon. Bush himself made the case against human cloning,before empanelling a council to look into it. McCormick claims that "everyone" admits that a pre-embryo (that is, apreimplanted embryos) is human life.
Common topics in this essay:
,
Kamm Brannigan,
Fields A21,
God God,
Cause God,
McCormick Brannigan,
Cohen Tompkins,
Dolly Sheep,
Reston Jr,
Michael Jordan,
shannon 111,
cloning debate,
human life,
religious viewpoint,
fields a21,
genetic makeup,
kamm brannigan,
clergy philosophers politicians,
mad cow,
cloning research,
cow disease,
shed light debate,
logically supportable position,
inherently wrong knowing,
kamm brannigan 127,
|
Acceptance Essays
