Abstract
This paper is a research paper on human cloning and specifically the legal and ethical implications as they apply to the United Kingdom and the United States. The paper begins by defining the notions implied by the word cloning and then proceeds to provide a precise analysis of the legal situation in the United Kingdom and the United States in order to facilitate an examination of the evolution of cloning in the United Kingdom as well as the contradictions that may exist between what is said and what is done in the United States. The paper contends that any discussion on cloning must take place in the international arena and not just on a national level, and that morals and ethics play an important role in the debate on cloning at both levels. Finally, the paper attempts to show the danger of the absence of legislation on cloning by giving a practical view of what is currently possible. This paper includes colour photographs and charts.

Outline:
Introduction
Basic Notions
Reproductive Cloning
National Laws In Force And The Influence Of International Organisations9
The Situation In The United Kingdom
The Situation In The United States
The International Organisations' Approach
The Implications Of Ethics
Generalities On Moral Issue
Identity Issue
Religions' Views On Cloning
Clonaid
Conclusion
Information Requests Mails
Unsuccessful Attempts To Obtain Information
E-Mail Deleted Without Being Read
Adolph Grunbaum
The Experts Actively Involved In Our Project
V.J. Norris And Michael W. Shaw, University Of Reading (United Kingdom)
Jeff Macmahan And Katrien Devolder
Rosario Isasi, Jd, Mph, Faculty Of Law, Montreal University
Bilbliography
Annexes

From the Paper
"In 2001, the United Kingdom passed what became one of the most liberal laws on human cloning. This may appear contradictory with what has been said in the introduction of this study, i.e. that Britain was the first nation set to ban cloning although they were the first to have legalised it. Indeed, this might have been perceived as an evolution and it would have been interesting to see why such an evolution occurred: why do people who first authorised cloning then changed their mind and finally decided to ban it? The fact is that the new piece of legislation actually covers reproductive cloning and not therapeutic cloning. However, since the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act of 1990, therapeutic cloning is legal for scientists who have been granted a state licence by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. The law allows cloning and growth of human embryos up to fourteen days for research purposes. What is now expressly prohibited with the law of 2001 is the transfer of cloned embryos into a woman's womb, but this has never been legal before 2001."

Tags:morality, ethics, cloning, legal, evolution, international, humans, animals, reproductive, genetic, DNA, in-vitro, blastocyst, embryo, research, federal

Abstract
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)."

Tags:clonaid, parenthood, infertility