cloning :: essays papers

cloningAbstractAs bioethics Leon R. Kass points out in his essay The light of Repugnance, those who defend human cloning meet themselves mainly as friends of freedom the freedom of individuals to reproduce, the freedom of scientists and inventors to discover and devise and to foster progress in genic knowledge and technique.Kass goes on to stress that in fact, a correct to reproduce has al delegacys been a peculiar and problematic notion. Rights generally belong to individuals, but this is a aright which (before cloning) no one rat exercise alone. Does the right accordingly inhere only in couples? Only in married couples? Is it a (womans) right to carry or deliver or a right (of one or more p bents) to nurture and rear? Is it a right to eat your possess biological child? Is it a right only to attempt reproduction, or a right also to succeed? Is it a right to acquire the muff of ones choice? deprecative analysis Kass debate on human cloning has brought to the surface a glar ing deficiency of bioethics. It has few if whatever good methods for dealing with new and allegory technologies. By that I mean those technologies where there seem to be no relevant historical precedents and where the potential benefits and harms are risky only, not yet usable for empirical testing. How might we best try to assess such technologies, and what counts as a good or atrocious argument for ethics and for public form _or_ system of government? Nor is it reasonable to insist on empirical evidence of benefit or harm when the scientific outcomes are lock in in the future and wholly speculative in nature. Such evidence could become available only when human cloning was a reality and then it could take years or decades by and by that to determine whether it had been a wise move to allow the research to go forward in the first place.The mark slue here is not communicable determinism or genetic identity but the preservation of individuality by no means the same as gen etic identity. Even so-called resembling twins are not wholly identical genetically that is well known. More to the point here is the issue of parents trying to use children for parental ends, procreating them with traits chosen by the parents for the purr-poses of the parents, not the welfare of the children. We happily accept twins when they are born, but no parents I have heard of go out of their way to procreate twins, or turn to assisted reproduction specialists to procreate twins.cloning essays paperscloningAbstractAs bioethics Leon R. Kass points out in his essay The Wisdom of Repugnance, those who defend human cloning regard themselves mainly as friends of freedom the freedom of individuals to reproduce, the freedom of scientists and inventors to discover and devise and to foster progress in genetic knowledge and technique.Kass goes on to stress that in fact, a right to reproduce has always been a peculiar and problematic notion. Rights generally belong to individuals, but this is a right which (before cloning) no one can exercise alone. Does the right then inhere only in couples? Only in married couples? Is it a (womans) right to carry or deliver or a right (of one or more parents) to nurture and rear? Is it a right to have your own biological child? Is it a right only to attempt reproduction, or a right also to succeed? Is it a right to acquire the baby of ones choice?Critical analysis Kass debate on human cloning has brought to the surface a glaring deficiency of bioethics. It has few if any good methods for dealing with new and novel technologies. By that I mean those technologies where there seem to be no relevant historical precedents and where the potential benefits and harms are speculative only, not yet available for empirical testing. How might we best try to assess such technologies, and what counts as a good or bad argument for ethics and for public policy? Nor is it reasonable to insist on empirical evidence of benefit or harm when t he scientific outcomes are still in the future and wholly speculative in nature. Such evidence could become available only when human cloning was a reality and then it could take years or decades after that to determine whether it had been a wise move to allow the research to go forward in the first place.The key issue here is not genetic determinism or genetic identity but the preservation of individuality by no means the same as genetic identity. Even so-called identical twins are not wholly identical genetically that is well known. More to the point here is the issue of parents trying to use children for parental ends, procreating them with traits chosen by the parents for the purr-poses of the parents, not the welfare of the children. We happily accept twins when they are born, but no parents I have heard of go out of their way to procreate twins, or turn to assisted reproduction specialists to procreate twins.