Human Cloning

Paper Summary:

As with most ethical debates, the argument regarding cloning stems from the fact that it is not completely bad, nor is it completely good. In fact, for many scientists, the cloning of human beings was not a motivating factor. It was the possibility of good things that cloning could bring that was foremost in most scientists' minds. This paper examines the arguments for and against human cloning, using several sources as references for these views, including Bill McKibben's "Enough" and Gilbert Meilaender's essay, "Human Cloning Would Violate the Dignity of Children".

From the Paper:

"Many individuals have considered what cloning would mean to society as a whole. Cardinal John O'Connor believes that cloning also risks changing society in ways we cannot imagine. What we think and how we feel about one another hinges on the results of cloning. O'Connor has clear objections to human cloning, noting it is a "drastic invasion of human parenthood" (O'Connor 10). He feels that cloning is a deliberate act that creates children without parents and is therefore disrespectful not only to human dignity but to marriage as well. O?Connor demonstrates that during history, the "Judeo-Christian tradition has respected the divine design of life-giving love". In his view, cloning replaces the "personal, unitive, two-in-one flesh dimension of life-giving material love" (10) with "technological replication" (10)."

More papers on Human Cloning:

• Analytical Essay # 2236 : "Analysis of the Permissibility of Human Cloning"
• Argumentative Essay # 121809 : "Human Cloning and Ethics"
• Argumentative Essay # 85276 : "The Immorality of Human Cloning"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: