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."

[ixnay]

Keep this thread going, guys - I have to do an oral argument on cloning for one of my finals this friday, and this thread is helping me get different points of view. Thank you.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Hoek
the process itself does not violate fundamental ideas about the sanctity of life.

Again, It may not violate your ideas about the sanctity of life, but it does violate mine.

It isn't an argument to say "this is my opinion because this is my opinion."

Well, that is what ethics are, an opinion.




Then again, you seem to be arguing something completely different then I am - maybe you didn't bother to read my posts, but I have already said that ethics are only part of the reason I am against it, and I have never said that it's my ethics alone that make it unjustifiable. It's quite the opposite, actually - it's other peoples ethics which I most worried about, so to speak. I don't have alot of faith that humans will be able to avoid mis-using and abusing this technology to the great extent that is possible.

And, as has been said a few times in this thread already, there are more then enough humans on this planet as it is, and we either need to stop breeding like rabbits, or stop prolonging our life spans.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
raskaladan- was this thread useful?

Yes, very useful.

Thanks everyone for your participation!

[Hoek]

There you go! Now that's an explanation. You do not explain, however, how cloning violates your view of the sanctity of life. I did.

No, that is not ethics. Ethics is an examination of "right" and "wrong" and the basis for these value judgements. To say something is unethical because that's your opinion is a given. In order to make a true argument about ethics, you need to explain the reasoning behind why you feel something is unethical.

Here is a formatted ethical argument:

Opinion: Cloning is unethical
Reasons: It will lead to more overpopulation, it will lead to bad things like organ farms, which violates the sanctity of life, it is "unnatural"

this provides a proposition and a reasoning behind it. your format of saying "my explanation is that I do not [consider cloning justifiable]" is not an explanation at all, but a restatement. More abstractly, you say "If X, then X." There is no causation in your argument.

Perhaps some of the problem comes in your definitions. These definitions come from Webster's:

Ethics: (singular noun) the branch of philosophy dealing with the rules of right conduct

Ethical: (adj.) of or relating to ethics

Justifiy: (v) to show to be right or valid

Justification: (n) showing to be right or valid

Opinion: (n) a judgement of the value of a person or thing

Explain: (v) to make understandable

So it makes no sense to say that your explanation for why you don't believe that cloning is ethical because you don't think it's justifiable. That basically means "I make my judgement that cloning is wrong, and in order to make it more understandable, I don't think that cloning is shown to be right." You therefore explain nothing. You do not make your opinion more understandable by saying it's unjustified.

[General Ludd]

Sorry, I was never trying to use my ethics in an argument against cloning, I was merely trying to say that it was a factor in my decission along with the 'real' dangers of it.


My ethical reasons against it can not easily be explained, and I was summerizing it by saying that it goes against my beliefs. (not religous beliefs, but I suppose one could say they are spiritual - or at least philosophical)

[Hoek]

This discussion is going nowhere. I will make one last attempt to explain. First of all, there is no such thing as "a person's ethics." Ethics is a study of what is right. A person has opinions, which are value judgments.

Secondly, determining that you are against cloning is an ethical judgement. You can't say that "ethics is only part of my decision, 'real' dangers are also a part of my opinion." Saying the 'real' dangers are part of your opinion is itself an ethical judgement. It is a factor in you deeming cloning unethical. There's no way you can dice it to not be an opinion on the ethics of cloning. If you say "I don't support cloning," you are making a value judgement, and a value judgement is founded in ethics.

If you still don't understand, then I give up.

[November Adam]

I'm personally against cloning for these reasons:

1) I believe that an embryo is a human.
2) I do not believe humans should be experimented on.
3) I do not believe the death of one justifies the life of many, unless the one chooses that.

With these in mind I can see no justifiable reason for cloning.

[Hoek]

Your definition of a human is quite broad. Do you use DNA and a cell as the only determinants of what a human life is? I can not say that something that is indistinguishable from any other species except that it contains human DNA is a human.

Humans are experimented on all the time. What do you think Placeboes are? I believe in the sanctity of human life, but I don't see how experimenting on humans violates the principles of the sanctity of life. Some exeriments are violations of the sanctity of human life, such as the medical experimentation of Unit 731 in Japan. Others, which test the effectiveness of a medicine, are necessary for better protecting human life, and are therefore pro-life.

Being pro-life does not necessarily mean you are against destroying anything after conception. If you destroy 16 cells in order to save 16 lives, that is rightfully considered pro-life too. The issue here is how you want to be pro-life. Do you want to let many people suffer through life in order to save 16-cell entities with nothing to distinguish them from other embryos? It isn't even a religious issue at this point; most religious leaders asknowledge that what defines something as human is whether or not it has a soul. An embryo, my friend, does not have a soul. It does not deserve the same consideration as a conscious entity like you or me.

[November Adam]

Originally posted by Hoek
Your definition of a human is quite broad. Do you use DNA and a cell as the only determinants of what a human life is? I can not say that something that is indistinguishable from any other species except that it contains human DNA is a human.

Humans are experimented on all the time. What do you think Placeboes are? I believe in the sanctity of human life, but I don't see how experimenting on humans violates the principles of the sanctity of life. Some exeriments are violations of the sanctity of human life, such as the medical experimentation of Unit 731 in Japan. Others, which test the effectiveness of a medicine, are necessary for better protecting human life, and are therefore pro-life.

Being pro-life does not necessarily mean you are against destroying anything after conception. If you destroy 16 cells in order to save 16 lives, that is rightfully considered pro-life too. The issue here is how you want to be pro-life. Do you want to let many people suffer through life in order to save 16-cell entities with nothing to distinguish them from other embryos? It isn't even a religious issue at this point; most religious leaders asknowledge that what defines something as human is whether or not it has a soul. An embryo, my friend, does not have a soul. It does not deserve the same consideration as a conscious entity like you or me.

My thought is that an embryo is a human in it's earliest stage. (a loud "here we go again", passes thorugh the minds of the assembled)

I realize humans are experimented on. That doesn't mean I have to accept it. If doctors wish to conduct medical experiments on their patients they should get the patients permisssion.

I understand the theory behind placebos... yet I've always wondered about the poor bastards who got the placebos..and they didn't work! So you have this poor sucker going to the doctor for help only to be given sugar pills. All the while thinking "what's wrong? Why am I not getting better?"

While man may say "an embryo has no soul" I'ld rather not risk it.

I personally have not been desensitized enough to dehumanize our life cycle.

[Hoek]

It's not an issue of desensitization. There is no ancient belief that says "an embryo is as much a human as you or I." You imply there was a sensitivity that we moved away from. I say that technology has created brand new questions: ones that you can not look to your bible for. The same thing with abortions. These are issues that have only become issues whatsoever in very recent times, and there is no ethical consensus here. I do understand your "I don't want to risk it" philosophy--i in fact use that myself in being against abortion after the first term--but I don't think that a clump of a few cells with no signs of any human life other than DNA can possibly be considered in the same league as you or I, or even a partially developed fetus. With a fetus, there are brain waves, there are organs, there is a nervous system. An embryo carries on no human functions other than multiplication of cells.

[November Adam]

Yeah but a fetus wouldn't come about if it weren't for that clump of cells. Embryos aren't embryos forever!


In a way there was a sensitivity to these things. It stemmed through ignorance (lack of knowledge). Prior to the knowledge of cellular levels. If someone was pregnant they lived with it.

Now we have all of this knowledge, and we think we are so high and mighty. We dehumanize many aspects of human development, in our atempts at "critical" thinking.

[Seeker]

"I believe that an embryo is a human"

then you're a boob.

Is a human egg cell a human being? How about a fertilized egg cell? No, of course not, not any more than your sperm or your fingernails.

[Hoek]

No, you're just trying to call people on my side insensitive. Why can't I flip that on you and point out that you are not sensitive to the needs of suffering adult humans who stem cells could help? What is the logic behind granting a fertilized egg the same status as you or I? You still have ignored this problem: you have only said that a fetus comes from an embryo. Nobody is denying that, but the question is: at what point in development should it be granted the same life protections as you or I. An embryo on its own can not even become a human life without a womb. The petri dish embryos have no potential for life unless they are implanted into a woman's uterus. An inability to further develop suggests to me and many others that a human embry is not a human life because it can not develop independently of a womb. In the case of late term abortion, it has developed enough that the entire baby could exist outside of the womb, and therefore killing it would indeed be killing a human life. In 2nd trimester and 1st trimetster abortions, it's more grey because the baby is still heavily dependent on the mother for development. An embryo, however, can not become human life at all unless implanted into a woman's uterus.

[General Ludd]

Hoek, you are the one who does not understand what ethics are, not I.

The deffinition you gave earlier supports this, "the branch of philosophy dealing with the rules of right conduct" Philosophy is is not an universal law nor does everyone share the same philosophy. it is relative to different people.


And to further expand it, here is the entire deffinition from dictionary.com:

A)A set of principles of right conduct.

B)A theory or a system of moral values

ethics (used with a sing. verb) The study of the general nature of morals and of the specific moral choices to be made by a person; moral philosophy.

ethics (used with a sing. or pl. verb) The rules or standards governing the conduct of a person or the members of a profession: medical ethics.

What I was essentially saying - although I never used this as an argument against cloning - is that it goes against my principles, theories, beliefs, and moral values.

Ethics and morals are relative to the individual, the fact that there are people who find this unethical and people who find it ethical prove this fact.

I have been trying to seperate my ethics from my arguments against this because I realise that other people have different ethics and morals- and I don't expect them to abide by my own. Apparently, you are unable to seperate your ethics from an argument though, and keep draging me into this argument about ethics, rather then the real dangers that these technologies are capable of.

Humans are experimented on all the time. What do you think Placeboes are?

What do you think placeboes are?

Placeboes are 'fake' medication (ie. sugar pills). I don't see how that relates to human experiments.

Sorry, that just struck me as an odd thing to say... Oh, and I notice how you forget to mention that human experiments that are done are voluntary, which was Adam's entire argument.

And I also notice how your entire argument for this is based on your ethics, and when anyone else mentions ethics - you quickly jump at them saying that it isn't a valid reason to be opposed to it, and how they should throw away their ethics, get with the times and adopt the same ethics as you - all the while denying that ethics are relative to the individual.


You're awfully good at side steping arguments and twisting them into something completely different then they originally where, Hoek.


By the way, Adam, placeboes are only used in controled expirments (always with volunteer subjects - it's illegal to do otherwise), and if it becomes obvious during the experiment that the real medication is working, they'll usually stop it prematurely and offer those on the placebo the real medication. Another interesting thing is that placeboes can often do a great deal to cure someone of their sickness - merely giving them reasurence and making them think that they are geting better can do a great deal.

[November Adam]

Originally posted by Seeker
"I believe that an embryo is a human"

then you're a boob.

Is a human egg cell a human being? How about a fertilized egg cell? No, of course not, not any more than your sperm or your fingernails.

Well alrighty then...

I believe that an embyo should have the rights we all do... this would help avoid "grey" areas.. is it a fetus or is it an embryo?

We can raise embryos in petri dishes... we don't even need sperm cells anymore. That may be the case but just because we can doesn't mean we should.

An embryo is a human in it's first stage of a life cycle.. right?

We can also raise people in cage's deprived of all contact. We can do many things if we wanted to for the sake of "science".

The logic in granting an embryo the rights of further developed humans would be that it prevents the death of this human.

Well anyways back to the argument of the thread.