Ethical Argument Term Paper

Excerpt from Term Paper :

Ethical Argument

Proclaimed by scientists, the thriving cloning of an adult sheep and the prospect to clone a human being is one of the most striking and latest instances of a scientific innovation turning out to be a major argumentative issue. A variety of critics, physicians and legal specialists, scientists and theologians, talk-radio hosts, as well as editorial column writers, for the period of the preceding few months, have been effectively reacting to the news, a number of them bringing up fears and apprehensions on the ethical and moral side of the subject, of the viewpoint of cloning a human being.

The National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC), at the appeal of the President, held inquiries, as well as organized a report on the ethical, religious, as well as lawful subjects contiguous to human cloning. The Commission suggested a suspension on attempts to clone human beings, at the same time as rejecting to call for an everlasting ban on the practice, as well as highlighted the significance of additional public consideration on the topic (NBAC, 2001).

Interests and Rights

The dangers and doubts linked with the present state of cloning technology is one set of ethical alarms on the subject of human clones. Scientists cannot exclude the likelihood of transformation or other organic harm for the reason that this technology has not yet been experienced in the midst of human subjects. For that reason, the NBAC report concluded that "at this time, it is morally unacceptable for anyone in the public or private sector, whether in a research or clinical setting, to attempt to create a child using somatic cell nuclear transfer cloning." Such efforts, it said, would pose "unacceptable risks to the fetus and/or potential child (NBAC, 2001)."

In the cloning argument, the ethical matters of utmost significance, however, do not likely absorb malfunctions of cloning technology, rather, to a certain extent the consequences of the accomplishment of cloning do raise ethical matters. What worries might there be on the subject of the well-being of clones, presuming that scientists were capable to clone human beings devoid of encountering the dangers stated above (NBAC, 2001)?

Such individuals would be mistreated in ethically momentous customs, is the conviction of a number of challengers of cloning. Moreover, a child might be continually contrasted to the adult from whom he was cloned, as well as by this means, loaded with cruel outlooks (NBAC, 2001). A lot of these unethicals involve the rejection of what Joel Feinberg has called "the right to an open future."

Even worse, the parents might in point of fact bind the child's chances for development and growth: for case in point, a child might be deprived of any educational prospects that were not corresponding to an occupation in basketball, if his parents decided to clone him from a basketball player (James, 2001).

In conclusion, a child might be loaded by the consideration that he is a copy and not an "original," in spite of his parents' behavior or approach. The child's wisdom of self-esteem or independence or pride, would consequently become complicated to carry on (James, 2001).

The society and the people have got to act in response to these concerns. On the one hand, the continuation of a right to an open prospect has a strong instinctive plea. On the other hand, the society is concerned by parents who fundamentally tighten their children's potential for development and progress (James, 2001).

Perceptibly, just as the society might denounce fundamentalist parents for completely separating their children from the contemporary world, or the parents of twins for imposing identical wardrobes and rhyming names, the society would denounce a cloning parent for humiliating a child with harsh expectations (James, 2001).

However, to carry on with an opposition to cloning itself, this is not adequate. Except the claim is that cloned parents cannot help but be unfair, the society would have reason to say they had mistreated their children simply for the reason that of their consequent, as well as needless, sins of bad parenting, not for the reason that they had selected to make the child in the first place (James, 2001).

The society have got to, in addition, keep in mind that children are time and again born in the center of all sorts of wishes and outlooks; the idea that there is a particular burden linked with
Parts of this Document are Hidden
Click Here to View Entire Document
the thought "There is someone who is genetically just like me" is essentially rough (James, 2001).

Moreover, any assumption a child might sketch from watching the person from whom he was cloned would be doubtful at best, given the hollowness of genetic determinism. His acquaintance of his prospect would be different simply in amount from what a lot of children previously recognize once they start to study parts of their family's medical history (James, 2001).

A number of people recognize to what diseases they might be at risk or that they would be bald. To be certain, the cloned individual might know more on the subject of what he or she could develop into. But the clone would definitely be in for a few shocks for the reason that of the society's acquaintance of the consequences of surroundings on the growth is so imperfect (James, 2001).

Lastly, even if we were influenced that clones are expected to undergo meticulous problems that would not be adequate to demonstrate that it is unethical to produce them. The child of a poor family can be anticipated to undergo precise sufferings and problems, however, the society do not in that way terminate that such children should not be born (Jean, 2001).

In spite of the sufferings, poor children can undergo parental love and a lot of the delights of being alive: the lack of poverty, though aching, are not critical. Further simplifying, no one's life is completely liberated of a few troubles or problems. In order for these thoughts to have crucial weight, one has to be able to say that life doesn't present any balancing profits (Jean, 2001).

Apprehensions uttered on the subject of the well-being of human clones do not emerge to give good reason for such a bleak evaluation. The majority of such children can be anticipated to have lives well worth living; a lot of the anticipated harms are no worse than those confronted by children adequately created by more usual ways (Jean, 2001).

If there is something extremely offensive in relation to cloning, it is more expected to be found by investigating the allegations of the cloning procedure itself, or the arguments people might have for benefiting themselves of it (Jean, 2001).

Concerns in relation to the procedure

Human cloning falls abstractly amid two other technologies. At one end there is the supported reproductive technologies, such as in vitro fertilization, whose primary rationale is to allow couples to create a child with whom they have a biological association. At the other end there are the emerging technologies of genetic engineering, particularly, gene transplantation technologies, whose's key reason is to create a child that has particular behaviors (Lewotin, 2001).

A lot of proponents of cloning see it as part of the initial technology: cloning is simply an additional means of giving a couple with a biological child they might in some other circumstance be not capable to have. In view of the fact that this goal and these other technologies are suitable, cloning ought to be adequate as well (Lewotin, 2001).

On the other hand, a lot of rivals of cloning see it as part of the second technology: although cloning is transplantation of an complete nucleus and not of precise genes, it is nonetheless an effort to create a child with particular behaviors. The profound doubts there may be in relation to the genetic handling of children ought to concern to cloning as well (Lewotin, 2001).

The debate cannot be determined, nevertheless, only by deciding which technology to incorporate cloning to. For instance, a number of opponents of human cloning see it as unremitting with supported reproductive technologies; however, in view of the fact that they believe those technologies are objectionable as well, the integration does not point to the support (Lewotin, 2001).

To perceive what can be cultured from such a relative loom, let us deem a vital argument that has been made in opposition to cloning: that it weakens the composition of the family by making characteristics and roots uncertain (Lewotin, 2001).

On the one hand, the association amid an adult and the child cloned from her could be depicted as that amid a parent and offspring. Certainly, a number of critics have called cloning "sexless reproduction," which evidently implies that cloning is a method of generating offspring (Lewotin, 2001).

The clone, on this observation, has only one biological parent. On the other hand, from the viewpoint of genetics, the clone is a sibling, so that cloning is more precisely explained as "delayed twinning" relatively than as sexless reproduction. The clone, on this observation, has two biological parents, not one; they…

Sources Used in Documents:


National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Cloning Human Beings. Report and Recommendations. June 9, 2001.

James Q. Wilson. The Paradox of Cloning. Weekly Standard. May 26, 2001.

Jean Bethke Elshtain. Ewegenics. New Republic. March 31, 2001.

R.C. Lewontin. The Confusion over Cloning. New York Review of Books. October 23, 2001.

Cite This Term Paper:

"Ethical Argument" (2003, February 24) Retrieved January 15, 2021, from

"Ethical Argument" 24 February 2003. Web.15 January. 2021. <>

"Ethical Argument", 24 February 2003, Accessed.15 January. 2021,