Seeing as how I will not have internet access during the upcoming week, I decided to blog on this article even though I am not an assigned blog leader. I had to do it for two reasons: one, an increase in my comment grade (!) and two because of how excited I got while reading this article . I have taken many classes in genetics and human heredity where I was previously able to formulate my own decision regarding human cloning. To be honest, I pretty much only saw negatives in moving forward with the use of humans in cloning. Somatic cell nuclear transfer is a highly controversial technology, with reason, and it is terrifying to think of how things could be if this technology was not severely restricted.
I believe that Dan Brock did an excellent job highlighting the pros and cons of cloning. His arguments for cloning were so convincing that it was difficult for me to see the pros and cons as being equal as he had believed. The view of seeing human cloning as just an extension of a reproductive right was quite clever. In denying individuals a potentially available service for cloning, it is almost as if we are condemning infertile individuals by not allowing them to maintain a biological connection with their child. Sure other alternatives are available, but if cloning
were the only option, then it seems wrong for us to deny them that right.
I think that the strongest argument made by Brock for cloning was his point that it is not illegal for parents to carry children to term that are known to have a serious genetic defect, yet it is illegal to clone (or select for genetically competent children to be carried to term). Though the parents of the child with the genetic defect are aware of what they will be subjecting their child to, they are able to make that decision for their child and negligently inflict a life of pain and suffering. And for what? How can we permit this to happen?? It almost seems as though we are giving more of a right to the parents than to the child. I will argue that we can’t accurately speculate the wishes of the unborn child, but I am pretty sure that no one chooses to have a serious disease.
I can feel myself ranting, so I should stop. Though Brock brings up amazing pros and cons with cloning, I still believe that cloning is wrong mostly because of the psychological and social distress that it may cause the later twin, or “clone”. It is difficult for me to see that the clone could ever be valued as a whole person, independent of his or her carbon copy, with his or her rights to ignorance and to an open future. To be honest, my disapproval of human cloning is entirely concerned with the rights of the alter twin and not so much of the individual cloned.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I also, am pretty sure that no one chooses to have a serious disease. However, is it better to never have been born than be born with a serious disease? Should we euthanize all of those people who alive with serious diseases (either born with or contract later in life)?
ReplyDeleteObviously, I know you do not feel that way, however allowing parents to have children born with genetic defects does not seem like much of an argument in support of cloning.
I thought the Hippocratic Oath that physicians are required to take states "do no harm". Cloning can and should be viewed as "bad" simply because of the harm that it does. Human cloning harms society with the false belief that suffering, illness and death should not exist but rather only joy, healthfulness and extreme longevity (or immortality according to some, through cryogenics). Human cloning would likely kill multitudes of human embryos until experimentation "got it right". Human cloning has the direct potential of exploiting women because of the necessity to harvest numerous egg cells and the invasive and likely painful procedure this would cause - in addition to the further potential to cause infertility of said women as a result of this harvestation; and, what of the women who were enticed to participate in this harvestation purely for financial gain? Wouldn't this probably appeal more to those in the lower income brackets than to those in higher ones? Wouldn’t human cloning for the purpose of solving the riddle of infertility for couples who found human cloning to be the only viable option – really only benefit those who could afford it anyway? Is that really fair? Isn’t the opportunity to have a family and the potential that the new life brings an opportunity gain that is lost due to its affordability if human cloning were the only real option?
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, both you and Brock mentioned the idea that cloning could present psychological and social distress on the "later twin" because of the unfair expectations placed upon him/her by virtue of being cloned. Is this really the best argument against cloning? What of siblings or off-spring of "great" or notorious individuals and the expectations that we all naturally place upon them? Micheal Jordan's sons have been closely watched since they entered college to see if "reflections of his basketball greatness” will shine through. Elvis's precious daughther, Lisa Marie has often been the center of public attention because of the fascination held of her dad. My own brother was such a class clown that often I automatically got assigned a seat at the front of the class just because of his antics 2 years before I came along. I can accept that I am over-simplifying this position, but as Brock pointed out in his article, much of this "psychological and social distress" happens in varying degrees to a lot of people, but to me, this isn't a strong enough argument against cloning when there are so many others.
cchristi, I enjoyed reading your post because I too had the same exact revelation. And the title of your blog so appropriately captures that revelation.
ReplyDeleteI came into this article with a negative predisposition towards cloning, for reasons I don't even know. I've never really even put serious thought into the issue. I guess just growing up and being exposed to certain media reports or discussions in school I developed a view that cloning is inherently evil. But Brock really does articulate the pros of cloning in a way that makes me ask, is human cloning really THAT bad?
From what Brock says, it seems like there are some serious positives that could develop from human cloning. However, I do agree with Presence that in order to get to this point, it would take endless experimentation and would most likely harm numerous individuals, especially women.
So, while Brock did peak my interest in the issue and allow me to see both sides a little more clearly, I think I'm sticking to my opinion that human cloning should not be allowed (which is an upgrade from thinking that it is evil).
cchristi, I understand and I agree that if couple could not have their own bilogically bonded their own child no other way except human cloning by their somatic cell;however, if people allow to open the door to allow for human clonning, it would be bring disatrous societies. because there would be many problem from people who would be abusing this benefits.
ReplyDeleteHuman clonning has not researched enough in this technology and it would be much easier to get benefit from Assist Reproductive Technology by Invitro Fertilization.