Human Cloning Don T Just Say No Summary
"Human Cloning? Don't Just Say No," written by Ruth Macklin, a professor of Bioethics, discusses the negative responses people have regarding human cloning. As the title says: "Human Cloning? Don't Just Say No," Macklin believes that cloning deserves a chance to be developed in humans. Though there may not be any substantial benefits to human cloning, nobody has presented a persuasive case that cloning is harmful either.
One of the points mentioned in the essay is about a violation to human dignity. Theologians have said that cloning would be a violation to dignity and that cloned humans would be treated with less respect than other human beings. Macklin contends that clones would share the same rights and dignities as the rest of us. She states that a …show more content…
lawyer-ethicist once said cloning is a violation of the "right to genetic identity" (603). Macklin doubts the existence of this right. She explains that adults should not be cloned without their voluntary consent, however, with such consent; the concept of genetic identity is not violated.
Another issue discussed is that human clones could be used as human farms or organ donors.
Unthinkable as it may be, there is a fear that parents may clone their children for "spare parts." Such a theory is ludicrous because parents of twins do not view one child as a spare part should the other break. She reasons that a clone would be looked upon as equally as a twin.
Macklin also mentions cloning being used for eugenics, which studies ways to improve a race or breed through selective mating and other means. She finds such ideas repulsive. She states that there are geniuses already frozen in sperm banks, but that women in general aren't concerned with creating a master race. Therefore, cloning wouldn't be used for "selective breeding."
Macklin gives many examples of cases where human cloning could be considered acceptable. For mothers who cannot have children, families with children who are sick or dying, and couples that may have genetic defects, human cloning could be the answer. Macklin explains that we should give human cloning a chance. Though some choose to see cloning as a human farm, Macklin explains that cloning can be seen as something as normal as in-vitro
fertilization.
Many people do not really know or understand what human cloning is and tend to misunderstand its use. By providing acceptable examples, Macklin opens the door to exploring further research. As with every experiment, it will have some difficulties, but with careful scrutiny and laws that would protect human rights, cloning could be researched further.
This essays can clear some doubts people have, but is not enough to sway them to be in favor of or against human cloning. It is an issue that will be controversial for quite some time. It might be okay to create a human clone as a person, but it is very wrong to use a human clone for spare parts. Everyone has the right to a normal life. If this right is violated, then no cloned humans should be created. As Macklin says, "A world not safe for cloned humans would be a world not safe for the rest of us."(604)
One of the points mentioned in the essay is about a violation to human dignity. Theologians have said that cloning would be a violation to dignity and that cloned humans would be treated with less respect than other human beings. Macklin contends that clones would share the same rights and dignities as the rest of us. She states that a …show more content…
lawyer-ethicist once said cloning is a violation of the "right to genetic identity" (603). Macklin doubts the existence of this right. She explains that adults should not be cloned without their voluntary consent, however, with such consent; the concept of genetic identity is not violated.
Another issue discussed is that human clones could be used as human farms or organ donors.
Unthinkable as it may be, there is a fear that parents may clone their children for "spare parts." Such a theory is ludicrous because parents of twins do not view one child as a spare part should the other break. She reasons that a clone would be looked upon as equally as a twin.
Macklin also mentions cloning being used for eugenics, which studies ways to improve a race or breed through selective mating and other means. She finds such ideas repulsive. She states that there are geniuses already frozen in sperm banks, but that women in general aren't concerned with creating a master race. Therefore, cloning wouldn't be used for "selective breeding."
Macklin gives many examples of cases where human cloning could be considered acceptable. For mothers who cannot have children, families with children who are sick or dying, and couples that may have genetic defects, human cloning could be the answer. Macklin explains that we should give human cloning a chance. Though some choose to see cloning as a human farm, Macklin explains that cloning can be seen as something as normal as in-vitro
fertilization.
Many people do not really know or understand what human cloning is and tend to misunderstand its use. By providing acceptable examples, Macklin opens the door to exploring further research. As with every experiment, it will have some difficulties, but with careful scrutiny and laws that would protect human rights, cloning could be researched further.
This essays can clear some doubts people have, but is not enough to sway them to be in favor of or against human cloning. It is an issue that will be controversial for quite some time. It might be okay to create a human clone as a person, but it is very wrong to use a human clone for spare parts. Everyone has the right to a normal life. If this right is violated, then no cloned humans should be created. As Macklin says, "A world not safe for cloned humans would be a world not safe for the rest of us."(604)