Help Me With an Ethical Problem

Remove all ads!

Interestingly, today President Bush gave a speech endorsing a bill to be debated before the Senate soon that would ban all human cloning. He listed three reasons, distinguishing between reproductive cloning and research cloning: (1) ethical -- cloning undermines inherent human dignity by making human life a commodity, sold to those with the money able to afford it; also of concern was the plans of a number of scientists to press on with cloning of humans immediately despite the horrible abnormalities that are resulting with clones of other species. (2)practical -- banning reproductive cloning while allowing research cloning was impractical he stated for a number of reasons I can't recall, essentially, if you allow research cloning there will be reproductive cloning as well creating a human commodity etc. (3) the effect on women -- apparently there have been some studies that not only would human cloning run the danger of making life a commodity in the sense of buying a clone, but also in the sense that it would encourage the trade for profit of not only women's reproductive material but also creating an explosion in the number of women being paid act as nothing more than a growth chamber; this it was argued would have a negative effect on the way society viewed women as well as on the individual women who act as these growth chambers.

That's what I remember him saying. The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect my views -- I'm only the messenger. There are of course numerous responses but polls show most of the nation pretty much agrees with what Bush said. I know most of Europe does too according to the polls on CNN (hehe, I like to imagine the Europeans gritting theirn teeth when they read that most of Europe agrees with Bush )

 

OK first I must address something, what I want to know is who is paying for this? I assume that government help is being provided, thus taxes. I am therfore guesing that if Bush is indorsing a ban, it is not to stop the reaserch all together but to stop government funding. If the situation is anything like the stem cell reserch thing this is the case. Unfortunatly that is not what the whiney liberal media want's us to hear. They want us to hear "Bush is terrible evil and is putting a stop to this.

Now, with that out of the way I would like to address the different important factors involved. First and formost is ethics. The problem, as it is with most things, is that everyone has a different opinion of what is right, and what is wrong. So how can we make a decision? common concent. If I was previously wrong, which is a high possability, and a bill is being past to ban the reaserch all together, then I say OK. The government was set in place to protect the intrest's of the people, and though I don't alway's agree with what they do and I B.S. about it, ultamatly I support them and follow what they say. As for me I dislike the idea of human cloning, there are enough people in the world without making more. But for the cloneing of organs and animals, I say go for it.

Now for the issue of probability I, as a High School Student, am not well informed, and not nearly smart enough to know. So I am going to have to stay neutral. All I know is that I don't believe that the good hard working tax payers should have to pay for it.

Oh and Xaelifer just beacause your ticked off, that cheap shot about the smilie faces was uncalled for.

 

I'm high school student from Canada here and my opinions towards human cloning are like this:
I don't object to cloning human organs, there's no problem with that, since it'll help us all, but cloning a comlpete person will never work. If for no other reason than the whole issue of a human "soul" which I happen to believe in. You could clone a body no problem but for that body to have a personality, ideas, ideals, values, and other such personal things, no way. I don't mean to offend you sir biologist, but the successful cloning of a human being will never work. Sorry man.

 

Good point, but I guess it boils down to God. Yeah, our parents made our bodies, but God gives us our souls, He gives us life. I guess it is possible that clones get souls, and I can't argue that they're artificially created, because we have invitro fertilization, but I don't think clones would have souls since we'd be trying to duplicate ourselves, we wouldn't be making new, unique individuals.

 

How about one-egged twins?

 

Faerus Stoneslammer: "You could clone a body no problem but for that body to have a personality, ideas, ideals, values, and other such personal things, no way."

I am not sure about this, I am not religious or particularly philosophical. Dolly the sheep is not a perfect sheep - there are problems with aging (due to innapropriately sized telomeres) but she had behaviours that were similar to any other sheep.

I realise that this obviously doesn't necessarily count as a soul, but her "personality" was present, derived either from her biology or something else. What is the distinction?

 

as for the religious aspect... God created man in his own image right? So what's wrong with playing God? After all we have already for several hundred years.

My old chemistry teacher said that your behavior/personality comes from roughly 50% genes, and 50% society impressions(how you're raised etc.) so a cloned human wouldn't be the same as the "original". The only problem I have with cloning human beings in the sence of like twins, would be the identity crisis that could appear. It would create major confusion in society, and probably impossible to fix unless you make some futuristic implant like thingy to identify you.

I've read an article that it would be possible to grow a personal donor. The donor would be a human body, a clone of you, without a head to prevent it build a neurosystem, making it inable to feel. Personally I don't see a problem with this thing except it's expensive and requires a lot of space.

Though I question one point in the whole cloning debate, as to clone another human (in full person). Why would you need a copy of someone???
I think today it's possible to create a clone for 1million dollars US (if I recall correctly), though why use that amount of money to get a copy of someone already there?

And trying to stop progress is not possible. If not in this country, then the next. If not in all countries, then in a secret lab somewhere.. Restricting is possible, but stopping is not.

As for the whole ethical question... it's wierd. Cloning humans is NOT unethical unless you believe it is! Ethics is a personal set of values, rules, norms etc. and therefore shouldn't be generalized!


Knowledge is power! HAIL!


[This message has been edited by Lokken (edited April 11, 2002).]

 

Ah, this is quite interesting...

"Forty Nobel laureates have issued a declaration describing the efforts of US President George W Bush to ban human cloning as having "a chilling effect on all scientific research in the United States".
http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/research/story/0,9865,682625,00.html