Opinions on the Ethics of Human Cloning

[Wraith]

There are potential abuses, as with anything humans do, but I don't see any inherent problems with it.

Wraith
"I am I."
-- Rei Ayanami ("Evangelion")

[Lonestar]

You fools! Don't you see? If you let that happen, soon we'll be fighting entire Armies of clones!

And then we'll have to hire the Trade Federation's Battle Droids to fight 'em!

Oh the Humanity!

[Hoek]

There isn't anything inherently unethical about cloning, even creating a cloned human being. Cloning a human embryo has the possibility for helping a huge amount of people (though this isn't proven, which is why research is needed), and unlike Bush, I don't think we should consider an embryo a human being (no soul=no human). Even creating a cloned human is not necessarily evil. Think about this: identical twins are technically twins since they have the same DNA. There isn't any real usefulness for this, however. A cloned human is a completely different human than the person who was cloned (and we all should get one thing straight: a person does not own his or her DNA).

Here are the ethical questions:

Could Clones be used as organ banks?
-No. A cloned human is still a human, despite having identical DNA to someone else. They should enjoy full human rights like everyone else.

Would cloning comodify sales of eggs?
-Yes, it would, which is perhaps the biggest ethical problem with cloning. Unless we take an unequivicol stance against selling eggs, though, by banning egg "donations" and such, there is no reason to object to using them for cloning.

What are the long-term consequences of human cloning?
-First, we should acknowledge that at some point, a human will be cloned. The consequences of human cloning could be far-reaching. First, it will signal the end of usefulness of the male gender. Cloning is human reproduction without conception, and therefore cloning could conceivably make males outmoded since they were no longer required for reproduction. In the opposite direction, it could be used in conjunction with genetic engineering to create a "clone army" of "super-humans." By this time, however, the role of humans in combat may be significantly reduced.

In the end, human cloning does not violate ethical principles inherently. This is the case behind any technology. Nuclear power has the ability to destroy the world or provide electrical power. Cloning could be used for curing diseases or for eliminating the male gender. It's up to us how to use it.

[Faboba]

Honeslty. The species starts to suffer the effects of overpopulation and it starts to talk about forms of unnatural prolifferation.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Hoek
There isn't anything inherently unethical about cloning

In your opinion, that is. Ethics are relative.

In the end, human cloning does not violate ethical principles inherently. This is the case behind any technology. Nuclear power has the ability to destroy the world or provide electrical power.

And while nuclear power can provide electirity, it produces nuclear waste and radiation at the same time. And in a sense, cloning technologies can aswell.



In my opinion, the most realistic/likely negative side to these technologies (not neccisarily human cloning specificly) will be genetic discrimination where people's DNA can be checked for flaws - even with out these technologies there have been many calls in the past to sterilize or murder the 'inperfect' (ie. retarded or handicaped people) I can only imagine the extent to which this can happen when given these technologies. Especially when, those who can afford it, can have genetically perfect babies created.

And then there is the ethical side, alot of people just don't like to tamper with nature.

And Faboba makes a good point, aswell.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Osweld
In your opinion, that is. Ethics are relative.

How do you mean? If I say "I like to murder people," have I morally justified murder?

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by technophile


How do you mean? If I say "I like to murder people," have I morally justified murder?

Very strange comparison, I don't see how it relates at all.

But, a murderer can very well believe that the murder he commited is justifiable/ethical. Perhaps after the crime has commited he will change his mind - but during the actual murder it's unlikely that he would consider it an unethical action, otherwise it wouldn't happen.


I don't see what the point of this is though, are you trying to say that everyone shares the same ethics?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Osweld
Very strange comparison, I don't see how it relates at all.

Point is that some justifications are better than others. If person A says "Cloning is unethical because I do not like cloning," (I'm not saying that this is your justification, I'm giving a f'rinstance) and person B says "Cloning is ethical because cloning a human embryo has the possibility of helping a great many people," then these are not equal justifications.

I don't see what the point of this is though, are you trying to say that everyone shares the same ethics?

Not necessarily, I'm saying that it is irrelevant that Hoek was expressing his opinions. Of course he was; what matters is, were his justifications good or bad, and why.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by technophile
Not necessarily, I'm saying that it is irrelevant that Hoek was expressing his opinions. Of course he was; what matters is, were his justifications good or bad, and why.

I don't consider his ethics any better or worse then mine, merely different.

[Hoek]

Tampering with nature? So what is your definition of "natural?" Humans have been tampering with nature since we harnessed fire. If you consider doing research on cloning unethical because it tampers with nature, then you should clearly be against all technological advances that humanity has made, since truly, technology by definition is "tampering with nature."

One important ethical question which has long been misrepresented is this idea that "the ends don't justify the means." This cliche should have been stated differently: the ends don't always justify the means. The ends and the means need to be balanced in such a way that results in ethical justification. Look at the situation during the Sept. 11 attacks: Bush ordered any plane flying towards Washington that didn't change course to be shot down. The reasoning behind this is that the consequence of not shooting it down could result in an even worse situation than a shot-down plane. This is why it's specious reasoning on the part of many bio-ethicists to object to stem cell research or cloning. If an embryo is used to save 20 lives, that should be considered in the use of stem cells. To simply say that "the ends don't justify the means" is not a cogent argument.

[Hoek]

Technophile is talking about the merits of an argument, not the "rightness" of my opinion. My opinion is that cloning is ethical, while yours is that it is unethical. I provide justification for my opinion, while you simply restated that it was your opinion. You don't bother to explain why this is your opinion.

[DarkCloud]

raskaladan- was this thread useful?

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Hoek
Technophile is talking about the merits of an argument, not the "rightness" of my opinion. My opinion is that cloning is ethical, while yours is that it is unethical. I provide justification for my opinion, while you simply restated that it was your opinion. You don't bother to explain why this is your opinion.

Your explanation was that you think it is justifiable - my explanation is that I do not.

[General Ludd]

Oops - why do I always hit "reply with quote" rather then "edit"?

[Hoek]

Originally posted by Osweld


Your explanation was that you think it is justifiable - my explanation is that I do not.

Um...no. Your logic is circular: cloning is unjustifiable=>my opinion is that cloning is unethical=>cloning is unjustifiable

I put forth an argument for WHY cloning is justifiable: it can do good and the process itself does not violate fundamental ideas about the sanctity of life. If you were to use the negative aspects that you list as your justification for your opinion, then you would have an argument. It isn't an argument to say "this is my opinion because this is my opinion."