Term Paper: Ethical Argument Proclaimed by Scientists

Pages: 9 (3188 words)  ·  Bibliography Sources: 1+  ·  Level: College Senior  ·  Topic: Children  ·  Buy This Paper


[. . .] Cloning therefore consequences in uncertainty. Is the clone an offspring or a sibling? Does the clone have one biological parent or two? The ethical implication of these uncertainties lies in the truth that in a lot of societies, ancestry recognizes responsibilities (Lewotin, 2001).

Characteristically, the parent, not the sibling, is answerable for the child. But if no one is clearly the parent, so the fret might go, who is accountable for the clone? Insofar as shared identity is footed on organic ties, won't this individuality be unclear or confused (Lewotin, 2001)?

A number of other supported reproductive technologies have brought up parallel questions in relation to ancestry and individuality. An unidentified sperm donor is considered to have no parental commitment towards his organic child. A substitute mother might be necessary to abandon all parental demands to the child she bears (Leon, 2001).

In these instances, the shared and lawful fortitude of "who is the parent" might emerge to continue in insubordination of insightful organic essentials, as well as to undermine affections that we as a society are generally dedicated to keeping (Leon, 2001).

Consequently, at the same time as the objective of supported reproductive technologies is to let people to create or bear a child to whom they are organically linked, such technologies might in addition, engage the formation of social ties that are allowed to supersede organic ones (Leon, 2001).

In the case of cloning, nevertheless, uncertain roots would give the impression to be less difficult, specifically for the reason that no one is being inquired to surrender a claim on a child to whom he or she might otherwise recognize an organic association. What, then, are the opponents frightened of (Leon, 2001)?

It does not give the impression to be plausible that somebody would have herself cloned and then pass the infant over to her parents, saying, "You take care of her! She's your daughter!" Nor is it probable that, if the cloned individual did raise the child, she would abruptly decline to compensate for college on the basis that this was not a sister's duty (Leon, 2001).

Certainly, policymakers ought to lecture to any mystification in the social or legal obligation of liability ensuing from cloning. But there are causes to think that this would be less complicated than in the instance of other reproductive technologies (Leon, 2001).

Correspondingly, when we contrast cloning with genetic engineering, cloning might show to be the less disturbing of the two technologies. This is accurate although the dark futures to which they are over and over again supposed to lead are generally the same (Susan, 2001).

For case in point, a current newspaper article considered qualms that the progress of genetic development technologies might "create a market in preferred physical traits." The reporter inquired, "Might it lead to a society of DNA haves and have-nots, and the creation of a new underclass of people unable to keep up with the genetically fortified Joneses (Susan, 2001)?"

Likewise, a member of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission uttered fears that cloning might develop into "almost a preferred practice taking its place, on the continuum of providing the best for your child." As a result, parents who decide to "play the lottery of old-fashioned reproduction would be considered irresponsible (Susan, 2001)."

Such doubts, nevertheless, give the impression to be more necessary regarding genetic engineering than to cloning. By giving a few people, in all likelihood, members of the higher classes, the chance to get preferred qualities through genetic manipulation, genetic engineering can fetch about an organic strengthening (or accentuation) of present social divisions (Susan, 2001).

It is difficult enough before now for deprived children to struggle with their more wealthy equals, given the material capital and academic chances that are frequently accessible only to children of the privileged class (Susan, 2001).

This injustice would more or less surely be compounded if genetic manipulation came into the picture. In distinction, cloning does not produce "improvements" in the genome: it is, somewhat, a means of repeating the genome, with all its flaws. It wouldn't allow certain groups of people to continue getting better and better all along a few esteemed aspects (Susan, 2001).

To a number of opponents, admittedly, this dissimilarity will not give the impression to be very significant. Theologian Gilbert Meilaender, Jr., opposes to cloning on the basis that children formed through this technology would be "designed as a product" relatively than "welcomed as a gift (Susan, 2001)."

The actuality that the aim procedure would be more choosy and nuanced in the instance of genetic engineering would, from this point-of-view, have no ethical implication. To the degree that this opposition mirrors fears in relation to the commodification of human life (Susan, 2001).

Motives for Cloning

This concluding area of argument in the ethical side of the cloning argument is as much emotional as it is scientific or theoretical. If human cloning technology were secure and extensively accessible, what exercise would people make of it? What basis would they have to employ in cloning (Rick, 2001)?

In one situation, a husband and wife who desire to have children are equally movers of a deadly recessive gene. Rather than risk the one in four chance of creating a child who will undergo a petite and aching way of life, the couple thinks the option: to relinquish rearing children; to adopt; to use donor gametes free of the recessive attribute; to exercise prenatal diagnosis and choosy abortion; or to employ the cells of one of the adults and effort to clone a child. To keep away from donor gametes and choosy abortion, at the same time as upholding a genetic tie to their child, they choose for cloning (Rick, 2001).

In one more state of affairs, the parents of a fatally ill child are informed that simply a bone marrow transplant can save the child's life. With no supplementary contributor accessible, the parents effort to clone a human being as of the cells of the fading child (Rick, 2001).

If triumphant, the latest child will be an ideal match for bone marrow transplant, as well as can be used as a donor devoid of major danger or distress. The net consequence: two healthy children, loved by their parents, who happen to be one and the same twins of diverse ages (Rick, 2001).

However, a lot of people would be ethically troubled in relation to the exercise of a minor as a donor, in spite of whether the child were a product of cloning. Even if this discomfort is rightly superseded by other anxieties, the "transplant scenario" might not present a more forceful case for cloning than that of the unproductive couple badly looking for an organic child (James, 2001).

The majority of the opponents, in reality, refuse to keep the particulars of such catastrophic (and most probably uncommon) circumstances. In its place, they strengthen their case by conceiving very diverse scenarios. Possible users of the technology, they propose, are narcissists or control freaks, people who will observe their children not as free, original identities but as products planned to meet comparatively inflexible stipulation. Even if such people are not genetic determinists, their recourse to cloning will indicate a desire to exert all possible influence over the "kind" of child they produce (James, 2001).

Those in favor argue that, conversely, the opponents have purely misinterpreted the social and ethical meaning of cloning that would allow people to clone themselves. With the omission of customs that dangers compulsion and misuse, particularly baby-selling and commercial surrogacy, cloning does not hinder with people's freedom to generate and get children by roughly any way, for more or less any motive (Rick, 2001).

They claim that cloning does not mirror a rigid libertarianism. Relatively, it acknowledges the unusual individual significance and private nature of reproductive decisions, even those with noteworthy social consequences (Rick, 2001).

In addition, the character of parental inspiration is itself more compound than the opponents often agree to. Despite the fact that vanity is a subordinate, not to be encouraged, there is a clear lack of concept of where arrogance in one's children ends and self-absorption starts (Rick, 2001).

When, for instance, is it inappropriate to bask in the reproduced glory of a child's achievements? Envision a champion gymnast who takes pleasure in her daughter's sporty ability. Now picture that the child was in fact cloned from one of the gymnast's somatic cells (Rick, 2001).

Would the society have to modify the ethical and moral appraisal of her happiness in her daughter's achievement? Or assume a man wanted to be cloned and offer his child chances he himself had by no means benefited from. And assume that, correctly or incorrectly, the man took the child's achievement as an evaluation of his individual unused potential. A sign of the prosperous life he might have had. Is this feeling blamable? And is it all that diverse from… [END OF PREVIEW]

Four Different Ordering Options:

Which Option Should I Choose?

1.  Buy the full, 9-page paper:  $28.88


2.  Buy + remove from all search engines
(Google, Yahoo, Bing) for 30 days:  $38.88


3.  Access all 175,000+ papers:  $41.97/mo

(Already a member?  Click to download the paper!)


4.  Let us write a NEW paper for you!

Ask Us to Write a New Paper
Most popular!

Emerging Issue That Pose New Ethical Dilemmas in Healthcare Research Paper

Nature of Science Term Paper

American Foreign Policy That Both Realists and Idealists Should Fall in Love Term Paper

Capital Punishment With Regards to Christian Ethics Reaction Paper

Corporate Social Responsibilities Term Paper

View 20 other related papers  >>

Cite This Term Paper:

APA Format

Ethical Argument Proclaimed by Scientists.  (2003, February 24).  Retrieved June 19, 2019, from https://www.essaytown.com/subjects/paper/ethical-argument-proclaimed-scientists/8334914

MLA Format

"Ethical Argument Proclaimed by Scientists."  24 February 2003.  Web.  19 June 2019. <https://www.essaytown.com/subjects/paper/ethical-argument-proclaimed-scientists/8334914>.

Chicago Format

"Ethical Argument Proclaimed by Scientists."  Essaytown.com.  February 24, 2003.  Accessed June 19, 2019.