Question

Cloning is now possible by inserting a skin cell from a baby into an unfertilized human egg that has had its own DNA removed. This produces a blastocyte (an undifferentiated embry-onic cell), which includes stem cells identical to the baby’s. With this technique it is possible to make genetically identical embryonic stem cells from any cell in the human body. This would remove the need to harvest these cells from existing embryos. Theoretically these stem cells could be grown into a variety of cell lines and organ tissues. The current research is aimed at creating genetically matched tissues, as replacement body parts; however, it is not a stretch to see that the technique could also be used to make genet-ically identical human beings—clones. Because of this potential some medical ethicists say the new technique points to the need for a legal ban on cloning human beings. Cardinal Sean O’Malley of the U.S. Council of Bishops called the research immoral: “Human cloning treats human beings as products, manufactured to order to suit other people’s wishes.”141.

1.Do you agree with Cardinal O’Malley’s argument against human cloning? Explain your answer.

2.Should human cloning be banned, even though our laws do not constrain other nations, and more than likely cloning a human will happen in the future anyway?

3.Is it possible that human cloning can be thought of as another form of human procreation, which many consider a human right?

4.Even if you oppose cloning a human, are you opposed to cloning body organs such as skin, hearts, and kidneys?

When creating a thread, complete the subject line by identifying which case you are responding to.

Discuss the ethical dilemma and respond to the questions in the case.

Answer 1

1.Cardinal O'Malley's argument against human cloning is agreeable to an extent because if this is allowed there are high chance for misusing ,creating a threat to society by cloning ,can create unnecessary expectations and beliefs that the dead ones can be brought alive by cloning ,bioterrorism is possible, can be against the nature by creating humans artificially. This can be a better way to save or preserve human being only when they start to extinguish from earth which is nearly impossible. So this techniques can be used to preserve wildlife than to clone a new human being in to this world. This often leads to a ethical dilemma who the parents of clone will be ,will it be a machine instead of humans.

2.Though banning is impossible this can be used in the advantageous way rather than being a source for defences and damages to the society. It purely depends on the nature and future of human beings whether to clone or not.

3.Though it is considered to be a human right still it is an ethical dilemma to accept or not.Human cloning can be a human procreation in future only and not in the current period.

4.Life is precious, it is ethical to clone a body part or organ to save a life because these organs can make them survive. So it is not a welcoming factor to introduce human cloning in same line.

The chief ethical dilemma is going against nature.The orrsom who creates is considered to be ultimate like a mother giving birth to a baby or the Almighty who created the world who are supernatural beyond ones imagination. So human cloning is something challenging the superpower itself in the universe.