| There are two types of cloning. One
| |
| | supported by IE above. While there is a
|
| involves harvesting stem cells from
| |
| | right not to be killed - there is no
|
| embryos ("therapeutic cloning"). These
| |
| | right to have one's own life saved. Thus,
|
| are the biological equivalent of a
| |
| | while there is an obligation not to kill
|
| template. They can develop into any kind
| |
| | - there is no obligation to save a
|
| of mature functional cell and thus help
| |
| | life.IIC. Killing the InnocentOften the
|
| cure many degenerative and auto-immune
| |
| | continued existence of an innocent person
|
| diseases.The other kind of cloning is
| |
| | (IP) threatens to take the life of a
|
| much derided in popular culture - and
| |
| | victim (V). By "innocent" we mean "not
|
| elsewhere - as the harbinger of a Brave,
| |
| | guilty" - not responsible for killing V,
|
| New World. A nucleus from any cell of a
| |
| | not intending to kill V, and not knowing
|
| donor is embedded in an egg whose own
| |
| | that V will be killed due to IP's actions
|
| nucleus has been removed. The egg is then
| |
| | or continued existence.It is simple to
|
| implanted in a woman's womb and a cloned
| |
| | decide to kill IP to save V if IP is
|
| baby is born nine months later.
| |
| | going to die anyway shortly, and the
|
| Biologically, the cloned infant is a
| |
| | remaining life of V, if saved, will be
|
| replica of the donor.Cloning is often
| |
| | much longer than the remaining life of
|
| confused with other advances in
| |
| | IP, if not killed. All other variants
|
| bio-medicine and bio-engineering - such
| |
| | require a calculus of hierarchically
|
| as genetic selection. It cannot - in
| |
| | weighted rights. (See "Abortion and the
|
| itself - be used to produce "perfect
| |
| | Sanctity of Human Life" by Baruch A.
|
| humans" or select sex or other traits.
| |
| | Brody).One form of calculus is the
|
| Hence, some of the arguments against
| |
| | utilitarian theory. It calls for the
|
| cloning are either specious or fuelled by
| |
| | maximization of utility (life, happiness,
|
| ignorance.It is true, though, that
| |
| | pleasure). In other words, the life,
|
| cloning, used in conjunction with other
| |
| | happiness, or pleasure of the many
|
| bio-technologies, raises serious
| |
| | outweigh the life, happiness, or pleasure
|
| bio-ethical questions. Scare scenarios of
| |
| | of the few. It is morally permissible to
|
| humans cultivated in sinister labs as
| |
| | kill IP if the lives of two or more
|
| sources of spare body parts, "designer
| |
| | people will be saved as a result and
|
| babies", "master races", or "genetic sex
| |
| | there is no other way to save their
|
| slaves" - formerly the preserve of B
| |
| | lives. Despite strong philosophical
|
| sci-fi movies - have invaded mainstream
| |
| | objections to some of the premises of
|
| discourse.Still, cloning touches upon
| |
| | utilitarian theory - I agree with its
|
| Mankind's most basic fears and hopes. It
| |
| | practical prescriptions.In this context -
|
| invokes the most intractable ethical and
| |
| | the dilemma of killing the innocent - one
|
| moral dilemmas. As an inevitable result,
| |
| | can also call upon the right to self
|
| the debate is often more passionate than
| |
| | defence. Does V have a right to kill IP
|
| informed.I. Right to Life
| |
| | regardless of any moral calculus of
|
| ArgumentsAccording to cloning's
| |
| | rights? Probably not. One is rarely
|
| detractors, the nucleus removed from the
| |
| | justified in taking another's life to
|
| egg could otherwise have developed into a
| |
| | save one's own. But such behaviour cannot
|
| human being. Thus, removing the nucleus
| |
| | be condemned. Here we have the flip side
|
| amounts to murder.It is a fundamental
| |
| | of the confusion - understandable and
|
| principle of most moral theories that all
| |
| | perhaps inevitable behaviour (self
|
| human beings have a right to life. The
| |
| | defence) is mistaken for a MORAL RIGHT.
|
| existence of a right implies obligations
| |
| | That most V's would kill IP and that we
|
| or duties of third parties towards the
| |
| | would all sympathize with V and
|
| right-holder. One has a right AGAINST
| |
| | understand its behaviour does not mean
|
| other people. The fact that one possesses
| |
| | that V had a RIGHT to kill IP. V may have
|
| a certain right - prescribes to others
| |
| | had a right to kill IP - but this right
|
| certain obligatory behaviours and
| |
| | is not automatic, nor is it
|
| proscribes certain acts or omissions.
| |
| | all-encompassing.But is the Egg -
|
| This Janus-like nature of rights and
| |
| | Alive?This question is NOT equivalent to
|
| duties as two sides of the same ethical
| |
| | the ancient quandary of "when does life
|
| coin - creates great confusion. People
| |
| | begin". Life crystallizes, at the
|
| often and easily confuse rights and their
| |
| | earliest, when an egg and a sperm unite
|
| attendant duties or obligations with the
| |
| | (i.e., at the moment of fertilization).
|
| morally decent, or even with the morally
| |
| | Life is not a potential - it is a process
|
| permissible. What one MUST do as a result
| |
| | triggered by an event. An unfertilized
|
| of another's right - should never be
| |
| | egg is neither a process - nor an event.
|
| confused with one SHOULD or OUGHT to do
| |
| | It does not even possess the potential to
|
| morally (in the absence of a right).The
| |
| | become alive unless and until it merges
|
| right to life has eight distinct
| |
| | with a sperm. Should such merger not
|
| strains:IA. The right to be brought to
| |
| | occur - it will never develop life.The
|
| lifeIB. The right to be bornIC. The right
| |
| | potential to become X is not the
|
| to have one's life maintainedID. The
| |
| | ontological equivalent of actually being
|
| right not to be killedIE. The right to
| |
| | X, nor does it spawn moral and ethical
|
| have one's life savedIF. The right to
| |
| | rights and obligations pertaining to X.
|
| save one's life (erroneously limited to
| |
| | The transition from potential to being is
|
| the right to self-defence)IG. The right
| |
| | not trivial, nor is it automatic, or
|
| to terminate one's lifeIH. The right to
| |
| | inevitable, or independent of context.
|
| have one's life terminatedIA. The Right
| |
| | Atoms of various elements have the
|
| to be Brought to LifeOnly living people
| |
| | potential to become an egg (or, for that
|
| have rights. There is a debate whether an
| |
| | matter, a human being) - yet no one
|
| egg is a living person - but there can be
| |
| | would claim that they ARE an egg (or a
|
| no doubt that it exists. Its rights -
| |
| | human being), or that they should be
|
| whatever they are - derive from the fact
| |
| | treated as one (i.e., with the same
|
| that it exists and that it has the
| |
| | rights and obligations).Moreover, it is
|
| potential to develop life. The right to
| |
| | the donor nucleus embedded in the egg
|
| be brought to life (the right to become
| |
| | that endows it with life - the life of
|
| or to be) pertains to a yet non-alive
| |
| | the cloned baby. Yet, the nucleus is
|
| entity and, therefore, is null and void.
| |
| | usually extracted from a muscle or the
|
| Had this right existed, it would have
| |
| | skin. Should we treat a muscle or a skin
|
| implied an obligation or duty to give
| |
| | cell with the same reverence the critics
|
| life to the unborn and the not yet
| |
| | of cloning wish to accord an unfertilized
|
| conceived. No such duty or obligation
| |
| | egg?Is This the Main Concern?The main
|
| exist.IB. The Right to be BornThe right
| |
| | concern is that cloning - even the
|
| to be born crystallizes at the moment of
| |
| | therapeutic kind - will produce piles of
|
| voluntary and intentional fertilization.
| |
| | embryos. Many of them - close to 95% with
|
| If a scientist knowingly and
| |
| | current biotechnology - will die. Others
|
| intentionally causes in vitro
| |
| | can be surreptitiously and illegally
|
| fertilization for the explicit and
| |
| | implanted in the wombs of "surrogate
|
| express purpose of creating an embryo -
| |
| | mothers".It is patently immoral, goes the
|
| then the resulting fertilized egg has a
| |
| | precautionary argument, to kill so many
|
| right to mature and be born. Furthermore,
| |
| | embryos. Cloning is such a novel
|
| the born child has all the rights a child
| |
| | technique that its success rate is still
|
| has against his parents: food, shelter,
| |
| | unacceptably low. There are alternative
|
| emotional nourishment, education, and so
| |
| | ways to harvest stem cells - less costly
|
| on.It is debatable whether such rights of
| |
| | in terms of human life. If we accept that
|
| the fetus and, later, of the child, exist
| |
| | life begins at the moment of
|
| if there was no positive act of
| |
| | fertilization, this argument is valid.
|
| fertilization - but, on the contrary, an
| |
| | But it also implies that - once cloning
|
| act which prevents possible
| |
| | becomes safer and scientists more adept -
|
| fertilization, such as the removal of the
| |
| | cloning itself should be permitted.This
|
| nucleus (see IC below).IC. The Right to
| |
| | is anathema to those who fear a slippery
|
| Have One's Life MaintainedDoes one have
| |
| | slope. They abhor the very notion of
|
| the right to maintain one's life and
| |
| | "unnatural" conception. To them, cloning
|
| prolong them at other people's expense?
| |
| | is a narcissistic act and an ignorant and
|
| Does one have the right to use other
| |
| | dangerous interference in nature's
|
| people's bodies, their property, their
| |
| | sagacious ways. They would ban
|
| time, their resources and to deprive them
| |
| | procreative cloning, regardless of how
|
| of pleasure, comfort, material
| |
| | safe it is. Therapeutic cloning - with
|
| possessions, income, or any other
| |
| | its mounds of discarded fetuses - will
|
| thing?The answer is yes and no.No one has
| |
| | allow rogue scientists to cross the
|
| a right to sustain his or her life,
| |
| | boundary between permissible (curative
|
| maintain, or prolong them at another
| |
| | cloning) and illegal (baby cloning).Why
|
| INDIVIDUAL's expense (no matter how
| |
| | Should Baby Cloning be Illegal?Cloning's
|
| minimal and insignificant the sacrifice
| |
| | opponents object to procreative cloning
|
| required is). Still, if a contract has
| |
| | because it can be abused to design
|
| been signed - implicitly or explicitly -
| |
| | babies, skew natural selection, unbalance
|
| between the parties, then such a right
| |
| | nature, produce masters and slaves and so
|
| may crystallize in the contract and
| |
| | on. The "argument from abuse" has been
|
| create corresponding duties and
| |
| | raised with every scientific advance -
|
| obligations, moral, as well as
| |
| | from in vitro fertilization to space
|
| legal.Example:No fetus has a right to
| |
| | travel.Every technology can be
|
| sustain its life, maintain, or prolong
| |
| | potentially abused. Television can be
|
| them at his mother's expense (no matter
| |
| | either a wonderful educational tool - or
|
| how minimal and insignificant the
| |
| | an addictive and mind numbing pastime.
|
| sacrifice required of her is). Still, if
| |
| | Nuclear fission is a process that yields
|
| she signed a contract with the fetus - by
| |
| | both nuclear weapons and atomic energy.
|
| knowingly and willingly and intentionally
| |
| | To claim, as many do, that cloning
|
| conceiving it - such a right has
| |
| | touches upon the "heart" of our
|
| crystallized and has created
| |
| | existence, the "kernel" of our being, the
|
| corresponding duties and obligations of
| |
| | very "essence" of our nature - and thus
|
| the mother towards her fetus.On the other
| |
| | threatens life itself - would be
|
| hand, everyone has a right to sustain his
| |
| | incorrect.There is no "privileged" form
|
| or her life, maintain, or prolong them at
| |
| | of technological abuse and no hierarchy
|
| SOCIETY's expense (no matter how major
| |
| | of potentially abusive technologies.
|
| and significant the resources required
| |
| | Nuclear fission tackles natural processes
|
| are). Still, if a contract has been
| |
| | as fundamental as life. Nuclear weapons
|
| signed - implicitly or explicitly -
| |
| | threaten life no less than cloning. The
|
| between the parties, then the abrogation
| |
| | potential for abuse is not a sufficient
|
| of such a right may crystallize in the
| |
| | reason to arrest scientific research and
|
| contract and create corresponding duties
| |
| | progress - though it is a necessary
|
| and obligations, moral, as well as
| |
| | condition.Some fear that cloning will
|
| legal.Example:Everyone has a right to
| |
| | further the government's enmeshment in
|
| sustain his or her life, maintain, or
| |
| | the healthcare system and in scientific
|
| prolong them at society's expense. Public
| |
| | research. Power corrupts and it is not
|
| hospitals, state pension schemes, and
| |
| | inconceivable that governments will
|
| police forces may be required to fulfill
| |
| | ultimately abuse and misuse cloning and
|
| society's obligations - but fulfill them
| |
| | other biotechnologies. Nazi Germany had a
|
| it must, no matter how major and
| |
| | state-sponsored and state-mandated
|
| significant the resources are. Still, if
| |
| | eugenics program in the 1930's.Yet, this
|
| a person volunteered to join the army and
| |
| | is another variant of the argument from
|
| a contract has been signed between the
| |
| | abuse. That a technology can be abused by
|
| parties, then this right has been thus
| |
| | governments does not imply that it should
|
| abrogated and the individual assumed
| |
| | be avoided or remain undeveloped. This is
|
| certain duties and obligations, including
| |
| | because all technologies - without a
|
| the duty or obligation to give up his or
| |
| | single exception - can and are abused
|
| her life to society.ID. The Right not to
| |
| | routinely - by governments and others.
|
| be KilledEvery person has the right not
| |
| | This is human nature.Fukuyama raised the
|
| to be killed unjustly. What constitutes
| |
| | possibility of a multi-tiered humanity in
|
| "just killing" is a matter for an ethical
| |
| | which "natural" and "genetically
|
| calculus in the framework of a social
| |
| | modified" people enjoy different rights
|
| contract.But does A's right not to be
| |
| | and privileges. But why is this
|
| killed include the right against third
| |
| | inevitable? Surely this can easily by
|
| parties that they refrain from enforcing
| |
| | tackled by proper, prophylactic,
|
| the rights of other people against A?
| |
| | legislation?All humans, regardless of
|
| Does A's right not to be killed preclude
| |
| | their pre-natal history, should be
|
| the righting of wrongs committed by A
| |
| | treated equally. Are children currently
|
| against others - even if the righting of
| |
| | conceived in vitro treated any
|
| such wrongs means the killing of A?Not
| |
| | differently to children conceived in
|
| so. There is a moral obligation to right
| |
| | utero? They are not. There is no reason
|
| wrongs (to restore the rights of other
| |
| | that cloned or genetically-modified
|
| people). If A maintains or prolongs his
| |
| | children should belong to distinct legal
|
| life ONLY by violating the rights of
| |
| | classes.Unbalancing NatureIt is very
|
| others and these other people object to
| |
| | anthropocentric to argue that the
|
| it - then A must be killed if that is the
| |
| | proliferation of genetically enhanced or
|
| only way to right the wrong and re-assert
| |
| | genetically selected children will
|
| their rights.This is doubly true if A's
| |
| | somehow unbalance nature and destabilize
|
| existence is, at best, debatable. An egg
| |
| | the precarious equilibrium it maintains.
|
| does not a human being make. Removal of
| |
| | After all, humans have been modifying,
|
| the nucleus is an important step in
| |
| | enhancing, and eliminating hundreds of
|
| life-saving research. An unfertilized egg
| |
| | thousands of species for well over 10,000
|
| has no rights at all.IE. The Right to
| |
| | years now. Genetic modification and
|
| Have One's Life SavedThere is no such
| |
| | bio-engineering are as natural as
|
| right as there is no corresponding moral
| |
| | agriculture. Human beings are a part of
|
| obligation or duty to save a life. This
| |
| | nature and its manifestation. By
|
| "right" is a demonstration of the
| |
| | definition, everything they do is
|
| aforementioned muddle between the morally
| |
| | natural.Why would the genetic alteration
|
| commendable, desirable and decent
| |
| | or enhancement of one more species - homo
|
| ("ought", "should") and the morally
| |
| | sapiens - be of any consequence? In what
|
| obligatory, the result of other people's
| |
| | way are humans "more important" to
|
| rights ("must").In some countries, the
| |
| | nature, or "more crucial" to its proper
|
| obligation to save life is legally
| |
| | functioning? In our short history on this
|
| codified. But while the law of the land
| |
| | planet, we have genetically modified and
|
| may create a LEGAL right and
| |
| | enhanced wheat and rice, dogs and cows,
|
| corresponding LEGAL obligations - it does
| |
| | tulips and orchids, oranges and potatoes.
|
| not always or necessarily create a moral
| |
| | Why would interfering with the genetic
|
| or an ethical right and corresponding
| |
| | legacy of the human species be any
|
| moral duties and obligations.IF. The
| |
| | different?Effects on SocietyCloning -
|
| Right to Save One's Own LifeThe right to
| |
| | like the Internet, the television, the
|
| self-defence is a subset of the more
| |
| | car, electricity, the telegraph, and the
|
| general and all-pervasive right to save
| |
| | wheel before it - is bound to have great
|
| one's own life. One has the right to take
| |
| | social consequences. It may foster
|
| certain actions or avoid taking certain
| |
| | "embryo industries". It may lead to the
|
| actions in order to save his or her own
| |
| | exploitation of women - either willingly
|
| life.It is generally accepted that one
| |
| | ("egg prostitution") or unwillingly
|
| has the right to kill a pursuer who
| |
| | ("womb slavery"). Charles Krauthammer, a
|
| knowingly and intentionally intends to
| |
| | columnist and psychiatrist, quoted in
|
| take one's life. It is debatable, though,
| |
| | "The Economist", says:"(Cloning) means
|
| whether one has the right to kill an
| |
| | the routinisation, the commercialisation,
|
| innocent person who unknowingly and
| |
| | the commodification of the human
|
| unintentionally threatens to take one's
| |
| | embryo."Exploiting anyone unwillingly is
|
| life.IG. The Right to Terminate One's
| |
| | a crime, whether it involves cloning or
|
| LifeSee "The Murder of Oneself".IH. The
| |
| | white slavery. But why would egg
|
| Right to Have One's Life TerminatedThe
| |
| | donations and surrogate motherhood be
|
| right to euthanasia, to have one's life
| |
| | considered problems? If we accept that
|
| terminated at will, is restricted by
| |
| | life begins at the moment of
|
| numerous social, ethical, and legal
| |
| | fertilization and that a woman owns her
|
| rules, principles, and considerations. In
| |
| | body and everything within it - why
|
| a nutshell - in many countries in the
| |
| | should she not be allowed to sell her
|
| West one is thought to has a right to
| |
| | eggs or to host another's baby and how
|
| have one's life terminated with the help
| |
| | would these voluntary acts be morally
|
| of third parties if one is going to die
| |
| | repugnant? In any case, human eggs are
|
| shortly anyway and if one is going to be
| |
| | already being bought and sold and the
|
| tormented and humiliated by great and
| |
| | supply far exceeds the demand.Moreover,
|
| debilitating agony for the rest of one's
| |
| | full-fledged humans are routinely
|
| remaining life if not helped to die. Of
| |
| | "routinised, commercialized, and
|
| course, for one's wish to be helped to
| |
| | commodified" by governments,
|
| die to be accommodated, one has to be in
| |
| | corporations, religions, and other social
|
| sound mind and to will one's death
| |
| | institutions. Consider war, for instance
|
| knowingly, intentionally, and
| |
| | - or commercial advertising. How is the
|
| forcefully.II. Issues in the Calculus of
| |
| | "routinisation, commercialization, and
|
| RightsIIA. The Hierarchy of RightsAll
| |
| | commodification" of embryos more
|
| human cultures have hierarchies of
| |
| | reprehensible that the "routinisation,
|
| rights. These hierarchies reflect
| |
| | commercialization, and commodification"
|
| cultural mores and lores and there
| |
| | of fully formed human beings?Curing and
|
| cannot, therefore, be a universal, or
| |
| | Saving LifeCell therapy based on stem
|
| eternal hierarchy.In Western moral
| |
| | cells often leads to tissue rejection and
|
| systems, the Right to Life supersedes all
| |
| | necessitates costly and potentially
|
| other rights (including the right to
| |
| | dangerous immunosuppressive therapy. But
|
| one's body, to comfort, to the avoidance
| |
| | when the stem cells are harvested from
|
| of pain, to property, etc.).Yet, this
| |
| | the patient himself and cloned, these
|
| hierarchical arrangement does not help us
| |
| | problems are averted. Therapeutic cloning
|
| to resolve cases in which there is a
| |
| | has vast untapped - though at this stage
|
| clash of EQUAL rights (for instance, the
| |
| | still remote - potential to improve the
|
| conflicting rights to life of two
| |
| | lives of hundreds of millions.As far as
|
| people). One way to decide among equally
| |
| | "designer babies" go, pre-natal cloning
|
| potent claims is randomly (by flipping a
| |
| | and genetic engineering can be used to
|
| coin, or casting dice). Alternatively, we
| |
| | prevent disease or cure it, to suppress
|
| could add and subtract rights in a
| |
| | unwanted traits, and to enhance desired
|
| somewhat macabre arithmetic. If a
| |
| | ones. It is the moral right of a parent
|
| mother's life is endangered by the
| |
| | to make sure that his progeny suffers
|
| continued existence of a fetus and
| |
| | less, enjoys life more, and attains the
|
| assuming both of them have a right to
| |
| | maximal level of welfare throughout his
|
| life we can decide to kill the fetus by
| |
| | or her life.That such technologies can be
|
| adding to the mother's right to life her
| |
| | abused by over-zealous, or mentally
|
| right to her own body and thus
| |
| | unhealthy parents in collaboration with
|
| outweighing the fetus' right to life.IIB.
| |
| | avaricious or unscrupulous doctors -
|
| The Difference between Killing and
| |
| | should not prevent the vast majority of
|
| Letting DieThere is an assumed difference
| |
| | stable, caring, and sane parents from
|
| between killing (taking life) and letting
| |
| | gaining access to them.
|
| die (not saving a life). This is
| |
| |
|
