argumentative essay about human cloning

• IELTS Scores
• Life Skills Test
• Find a Test Centre
• Alternatives to IELTS
• General Training
• Academic Word List
• Topic Vocabulary
• Collocation
• Phrasal Verbs
• Writing eBooks
• Reading eBook
• All eBooks & Courses
• Sample Essays
• Human Cloning Essay

IELTS Human Cloning Essay

This is a model answer for a  human cloning  essay.

If you look at the task, the wording is slightly different from the common  'do you agree or disagree'  essay.

However, it is essentially asking the same thing.

As people live longer and longer, the idea of cloning human beings in order to provide spare parts is becoming a reality. The idea horrifies most people, yet it is no longer mere science fiction.

To what extent do you agree with such a procedure?

Have you any reservations?

Understanding the Question and Task

You are asked if you agree with human cloning to use their body parts (in other words, what are the benefits), and what reservations (concerns) you have (in other words, what are the disadvantages).

So the best way to answer this human cloning essay is probably to look at both sides of the issue as has been done in the model answer.

As always, you must read the question carefully to make sure you answer it fully and do not go off topic.

You are specifically being asked to discuss the issue of creating human clones to then use their body parts. If you write about other issues to do with human cloning, you may go off topic.

Model Human Cloning Essay

You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.

Write about the following topic:

Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own experience or knowledge.

Write at least 250 words.

Model Answer for Human Cloning Essay

The cloning of animals has been occurring for a number of years now, and this has now opened up the possibility of cloning humans too. Although there are clear benefits to humankind of cloning to provide spare body parts, I believe it raises a number of worrying ethical issues.

Due to breakthroughs in medical science and improved diets, people are living much longer than in the past. This, though, has brought with it problems. As people age, their organs can fail so they need replacing. If humans were cloned, their organs could then be used to replace those of sick people. It is currently the case that there are often not enough organ donors around to fulfil this need, so cloning humans would overcome the issue as there would then be a ready supply.

However, for good reasons, many people view this as a worrying development. Firstly, there are religious arguments against it. It would involve creating other human beings and then eventually killing them in order to use their organs, which it could be argued is murder. This is obviously a sin according to religious texts. Also, dilemmas would arise over what rights these people have, as surely they would be humans just like the rest of us. Furthermore, if we have the ability to clone humans, it has to be questioned where this cloning will end. Is it then acceptable for people to start cloning relatives or family members who have died?

To conclude, I do not agree with this procedure due to the ethical issues and dilemmas it would create. Cloning animals has been a positive development, but this is where it should end.

(276 words)

The essay is well-organized, with a clear introducion which introduces the topic:

• The cloning of animals has been occurring for a number of years now, and this has now opened up the possibility of cloning humans too.

And it has a thesis statement that makes it clear exactly how the human cloning essay will be structured and what the candidate's opinion is:

• Although there are clear benefits to humankind of cloning to provide spare body parts, I believe it raises a number of worrying ethical issues.

The first body paragraph discusses the advantages of cloning humans, and then the second body paragraph looks at the problems associated with this. The change of direction to look at the other side is clearly marked with a transition word ("however") and a topic sentence:

• However, for good reasons, many people view this as a worrying development.

Other transition words are used effectively to guide the reader through the ideas in the human cloning essay: Firstly,.. Also,... Furthermore,...

The candidate demonstrates that they can use a mix of complex structures. For example:

• Due to breakthroughs in medical science and improved diets, people are living much longer than in the past.
• It would involve creating another human and then eventually killing it in order to use its organs, which it could be argued is murder.
• ...if we have the ability to clone humans, it has to be questioned where this cloning will end.

<<< Back

Next >>>

More Agree / Disagree Essays:

Extinction of Animals Essay: Should we prevent this from happening?

In this extinction of animals essay for IELTS you have to decide whether you think humans should do what they can to prevent the extinction of animal species.

Multinational Organisations and Culture Essay

Multinational Organisations and Culture Essay: Improve you score for IELTS Essay writing by studying model essays. This Essay is about the extent to which working for a multinational organisation help you to understand other cultures.

Ban Smoking in Public Places Essay: Should the government ban it?

Ban smoking in public places essay: The sample answer shows you how you can present the opposing argument first, that is not your opinion, and then present your opinion in the following paragraph.

Truthfulness in Relationships Essay: How important is it?

This truthfulness in relationships essay for IELTS is an agree / disagree type essay. You need to decide if it's the most important factor.

Free University Education Essay: Should it be paid for or free?

Free university education Model IELTS essay. Learn how to write high-scoring IELTS essays. The issue of free university education is an essay topic that comes up in the IELTS test. This essay therefore provides you with some of the key arguments about this topic.

Examinations Essay: Formal Examinations or Continual Assessment?

Examinations Essay: This IELTS model essay deals with the issue of whether it is better to have formal examinations to assess student’s performance or continual assessment during term time such as course work and projects.

Internet vs Newspaper Essay: Which will be the best source of news?

A recent topic to write about in the IELTS exam was an Internet vs Newspaper Essay. The question was: Although more and more people read news on the internet, newspapers will remain the most important source of news. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Role of Schools Essay: How should schools help children develop?

This role of schools essay for IELTS is an agree disagree type essay where you have to discuss how schools should help children to develop.

IELTS Sample Essay: Is alternative medicine ineffective & dangerous?

IELTS sample essay about alternative and conventional medicine - this shows you how to present a well-balanced argument. When you are asked whether you agree (or disagree), you can look at both sides of the argument if you want.

Paying Taxes Essay: Should people keep all the money they earn?

Paying Taxes Essay: Read model essays to help you improve your IELTS Writing Score for Task 2. In this essay you have to decide whether you agree or disagree with the opinion that everyone should be able to keep their money rather than paying money to the government.

Scientific Research Essay: Who should be responsible for its funding?

Scientific research essay model answer for Task 2 of the test. For this essay, you need to discuss whether the funding and controlling of scientific research should be the responsibility of the government or private organizations.

Technology Development Essay: Are earlier developments the best?

This technology development essay shows you a complex IELTS essay question that is easily misunderstood. There are tips on how to approach IELTS essay questions

Airline Tax Essay: Would taxing air travel reduce pollution?

Airline Tax Essay for IELTS. Practice an agree and disagree essay on the topic of taxing airlines to reduce low-cost air traffic. You are asked to decide if you agree or disagree with taxing airlines in order to reduce the problems caused.

Essay for IELTS: Are some advertising methods unethical?

This is an agree / disagree type question. Your options are: 1. Agree 100% 2. Disagree 100% 3. Partly agree. In the answer below, the writer agrees 100% with the opinion. There is an analysis of the answer.

Employing Older People Essay: Is the modern workplace suitable?

Employing Older People Essay. Examine model essays for IELTS Task 2 to improve your score. This essay tackles the issue of whether it it better for employers to hire younger staff rather than those who are older.

IELTS Internet Essay: Is the internet damaging social interaction?

Internet Essay for IELTS on the topic of the Internet and social interaction. Included is a model answer. The IELTS test usually focuses on topical issues. You have to discuss if you think that the Internet is damaging social interaction.

IELTS Vegetarianism Essay: Should we all be vegetarian to be healthy?

Vegetarianism Essay for IELTS: In this vegetarianism essay, the candidate disagrees with the statement, and is thus arguing that everyone does not need to be a vegetarian.

Sample IELTS Writing: Is spending on the Arts a waste of money?

Sample IELTS Writing: A common topic in IELTS is whether you think it is a good idea for government money to be spent on the arts. i.e. the visual arts, literary and the performing arts, or whether it should be spent elsewhere, usually on other public services.

Return of Historical Objects and Artefacts Essay

This essay discusses the topic of returning historical objects and artefacts to their country of origin. It's an agree/disagree type IELTS question.

Dying Languages Essay: Is a world with fewer languages a good thing?

Dying languages essays have appeared in IELTS on several occasions, an issue related to the spread of globalisation. Check out a sample question and model answer.

Any comments or questions about this page or about IELTS? Post them here. Your email will not be published or shared.

Before you go...

Check out the ielts buddy band 7+ ebooks & courses.

Would you prefer to share this page with others by linking to it?

• Click on the HTML link code below.
• Copy and paste it, adding a note of your own, into your blog, a Web page, forums, a blog comment, your Facebook account, or anywhere that someone would find this page valuable.

Band 7+ eBooks

"I think these eBooks are FANTASTIC!!! I know that's not academic language, but it's the truth!"

Linda, from Italy, Scored Band 7.5

IELTS Modules:

Other resources:.

• All Lessons
• Band Score Calculator
• Writing Feedback
• Speaking Feedback
• Teacher Resources
• Free Downloads
• Recent Essay Exam Questions
• Books for IELTS Prep
• Useful Links

Recent Articles

Useful Language for IELTS Graphs

May 16, 24 04:44 AM

Taking a Gap Year

May 14, 24 03:00 PM

IELTS Essay: Loving Wildlife and Nature

May 10, 24 02:36 AM

Important pages

IELTS Writing IELTS Speaking IELTS Listening   IELTS Reading All Lessons Vocabulary Academic Task 1 Academic Task 2 Practice Tests

Connect with us

Copyright © 2022- IELTSbuddy All Rights Reserved

IELTS is a registered trademark of University of Cambridge, the British Council, and IDP Education Australia. This site and its owners are not affiliated, approved or endorsed by the University of Cambridge ESOL, the British Council, and IDP Education Australia.

How We Feel about Human Cloning

Guest post by Joshua May

Suppose you desperately want a healthy child to build a family of your own.  As is increasingly common, however, you can’t do it naturally – whether from infertility, a genetic disease you don’t want to pass on, or a non-traditional relationship.  If you seek a genetic connection with the child, there are some limitations to the main alternatives: adoption, surrogacy, and in vitro fertilization.  You may yearn for more options.

How would you feel about cloning?  Take the nucleus of a cell from yourself or a loved one, then put it into an egg that will eventually develop into a baby that shares nearly all the genes of the donor cell.  The resulting baby will simply be a kind of ‘delayed twin’ of the donor.

Most people believe this is immoral.  There’s a bit more support for therapeutic uses that merely create new tissue, for example.  But, at least in the US and UK, people overwhelmingly condemn cloning for the purposes of creating new human lives.  In fact, a recent poll suggests there is little disagreement in America over this issue, where human cloning is among the most widely condemned topics (alongside polygamy and infidelity).

That’s what people think, but how do they feel ?  Controversial bioethical issues often generate intense feelings.  Some bioethicists treat cloning in particular as a line in the sand that we mustn’t cross, for fear of sliding down a slippery slope to a dystopia.

Consider Leon Kass, who played a major role in public policy as chair of George W. Bush’s President’s Council on Bioethics.  Kass argues that there is wisdom in repugnance toward human cloning, allowing us to ‘intuit and feel, immediately and without argument, the violation of things that we rightfully hold dear’.  As opposed to mere unease or sadness, Kass and some others have argued that disgust is such a powerful and distinctive emotion that we should take it seriously as a moral guide when deliberating about ethical issues.

An empirical claim lurks.  Such bioethicists assume that people in general share their reaction of repugnance. Besides, if we can uncover the emotional reactions people tend to feel toward disputed moral issues, then we can better understand why they hold the beliefs they do.  Does the prospect of cloning humans make us sick?  Scared?  Sad?  Angry?  Excited?  At ease?

In my paper , I provide some initial evidence that people (at least in the States) feel primarily anxious and curious about human reproductive cloning.  These were the most frequently self-reported negative and positive emotions, not disgust, fear, sadness, anger, excitement, amusement, comfort, or joy. Now disgust was interestingly the third most commonly reported negative emotion when selected from a pre-set list.  But only about one third of participants selected it, and even fewer mentioned disgust before seeing such a list.  Moreover, the term ‘disgust’ is used in many ways, sometimes just to indicate one’s moral disapproval rather than an emotion.  For example, writer Philip Pullman once condemned a ban on sending prisoners books in prison, calling it ‘disgusting’ .  Such uses of the term may well be to merely signal one’s disapproval, not to report an emotional reaction that is guiding one’s judgment.

Data on people’s reactions don’t directly support the morality or immorality of human cloning.  But there are various implications.

First, it’s not so clear that there’s a ‘widespread’ reaction of repugnance to human cloning that we should heed.  Our emotional reactions are more complicated and varied.  Even if there are sound arguments against human cloning, arguments from repugnance rest on shaky ground.

Second, we should be careful to attribute certain reactions to the populace without some empirical data in support.  We should scrutinise, for example, talk of ‘the widespread repugnances of humankind,’ as Kass has put it.

Finally, I hope this initial dataset will motivate further research on how we think and feel about various contemporary moral issues.  The kinds of reactions people have can illuminate their concerns and the nature of the moral disagreements that animate public discourse.

When it comes to human cloning, for example, we now have some evidence that people don’t necessarily feel repugnance toward it and thus don’t perceive cloning as violating things they hold dear.  The combination of anxiety and curiosity may indicate instead that the morality of human cloning is question because it’s perceived as novel and unpredictable.

Read the full paper here .

Comment and Opinion | Open Debate

The views and opinions expressed on this site are solely those of the original authors. They do not necessarily represent the views of BMJ and should not be used to replace medical advice. Please see our full Blog Terms and Conditions .

All BMJ blog posts are posted under a CC-BY-NC licence

BMJ Journals

The Concept of Human Cloning Analytical Essay

Introduction, background study, methodology used, results and analysis.

The contemporary world has been associated with an advanced technology which has greatly boosted efficiency and effectiveness across all sectors ranging from business, engineering to the medical field.

The concept of cloning is among the most recent human discoveries that have greatly transformed societies. The invention has been associated with many benefits such as the ability to supplement natural organs with those generated those cloning.

For instance, cloning has enabled generation of organs which has created an alternative organs supply which those organs that are delivered from donors during the organ transplant instances. Organs generated through cloning have been noted to be very effective as they are not known to experience any rejections since they share the same gene with the body system.

Animal cloning has experienced a considerable success in the past few years. The first successful animal cloning was realized in 1997 when the Dolly sheep was successfully cloned.

Since then, animal cloning has greatly improved as noted by the ability of scientists to regenerate pigs, rabbits, goats among other animals. Despite, the great success in animal cloning, human cloning has remained a great problem to many scientists. The recent success of a Korean scientist to generate stem cells from cloned human embryos is a great step for the success of human cloning.

In spite of the presence of a very advanced technology in animal cloning, the process has been associated with many failures with a success rate of one or three in a hundred experiments. Human cloning on the other hand refers to the process of creation of genetically copy of a human.

There are generally three diverse processes of cloning which include Embryonic cloning, adult DNA cloning and the therapeutic cloning. Embryo cloning is also regarded as artificial twinning. This process involves removing one or more cells from an embryo and enabling the cell to develop on separately having the same DNA as the original embryo.

This type of cloning has recorded a significant success and especially in animal cloning. It has being tested minimally on humans. The Adult DNA cloning is the process that entails removing the DNA from the embryo and replacing it with another one from an adult animal.

The method is employed to give an exact duplicate of an existing animal. The process has been successfully carried out on sheep and goats, but not tried on human beings. Therapeutic cloning is the process that is used to clone human tissues or a human organ for transplant.

Various scholars and individuals perceive the issue of human cloning differently depending on one’s ethnicity, age, religion and gender. The researcher used the family members who included his parents, his younger brother and sister to find out how the aforementioned variables influence people’s perception about human cloning.

The research entailed a survey where the researcher prepared a questionnaire that the participants were required to fill accordingly and return them. The researcher in addition, organized a face –to-face interview with respective participants in order for him to clarify some issues and gather sufficient and relevant data for analysis.

The researcher used the questioner as his instrumental tool for collecting relevant data that was required to determine how age, ethnicity, religion and gender influenced an individual’s perception about human cloning. The questions that were contained in the questioner included both open and closed questions.

The closed questions were tailored in manner so that the interviewee could identify an answer from the range of alternatives provided. This was important since it enabled quantification of the variables. On the other hand, the use of open questions helped the participants to give their personal views pertaining to specific issues.

This helped in the qualitative study. The study used the researcher family members as the participants who included his, mother, father, younger brother and sister. After collecting relevant data, the questionnaires were coded, filtered and the data analyzed both quantitatively and qualitatively.

The study was subjected to a number of limitations. One of the limitations that was observed was lack of a larger number of participants who participated in this survey; the failure meant that the researcher did not get sufficient data to facilitate proper inferences from the results presented.

Lack of larger number of participants meant that the researcher did not have an opportunity to study some important variables. For instance, all my participants being Christian denied me an opportunity to learn how other religions perceive the issue of human cloning.

The lack of large number of participants was necessitated by lack of enough resources that is, money and time to conduct the survey on a larger context. All my participants participated actively while responding to the questions posed to them, apart from my dad who was noted to shy away while addressing some issues.

All my family members embraced the concept of therapeutic cloning as an appropriate medical strategy to address the shortage of organs for transplant. All the four members agreed that the use of therapeutic cloning will greatly enhance the living of many people and especially those that require organs transplants such as the kidney and liver.

Although all of them were aware that these organs can alternatively be received from compatible donors, they were of the opinion that therapeutic cloning should be used to produce necessary organs for cloning since organs produced through this process are the best and cannot be subjected to rejection by the recipients system since they have the DNA of the recipient.

They also embraced the therapeutic cloning as they viewed it as a very appropriate technique to address the prevalent shortages for organs for transplant and especially in this era when peoples are opting for the sale of their organs rather than offer them for free.

My younger brother and sister accepted the human cloning as being the best strategy for procreation, since it gives individuals a great opportunity to determine whether he/she opts for twins or triplets.

They also supported human cloning as the best strategy for procreation since it’s more flexible than the natural method. Through this process one is given the opportunity to select offspring with the desired traits. Human cloning is very flexible and thus, the concerned party is more privileged in selecting the most perfect donor for one’s offspring.

This opportunity offers relevant individuals chances to select the donor of one’s offspring depending on one’s desired traits. On the other hand, my father and mother disagreed with human cloning as being the best strategy to foster twin offspring. They advocated for the natural twinning method which they argued was very effective and not prone to uncertainty of failure.

They equally contested the use of human cloning in establishing a pedigree child. My parents rejected the use of cloning technology to bring up a superb generation, since the offspring generated will lack varieties which brings beauty in life. My mother argued that although cloning may be employed to bring forth a race of people with super strengths such as Michal Jordan, the generation generated may unfortunately suffer from low intelligence which can make it being exploited as slaves.

Thus, cloning of humans should only guarantee emergence of a super human being who are both physically and intelligently dominate than the present humans we have today.

My sister and mother showed some inclination towards greatly accepting the idea of cloning as a solution to instances of infertility or genetically inherited illness. They argued that instead of someone engaging into extra marital affairs in the process of looking for a child, the use of cloning is an effective method of one getting one’s offspring.

In addition they argued those people that suffer from genetically inheritable diseases should consider opting for cloning method as their process of procreation to eradicate chances of passing these genes to their offspring.

My dad was of the opinion that instead of the use of cloning method as the process to foster children, the couple in question should consider adapting children. With adaption of the children, the family will have an opportunity to raise their own children and save the society and government the burden of looking after the adapted children.

When it came to the issue that cloning is the best strategy to guarantee the sex of a child, my dad greatly appreciated this concept by dad arguing that cloning was a better strategy to adapt for fostering children as it gives one a guarantee of a 100% about the sex of the child.

He argued that with the great medical technology, one is given an opportunity to get a baby of one’s preferred sex, without undergoing the natural method of try and error.

Similarly, my younger sister equally accepted the use of cloning as a technique of fostering siblings of desired sex. She argued that the ability to choose the sex of the child will greatly help in addressing the great gender imbalances that exist between men and women.

My mother and younger brother did not support the use of cloning in procreating siblings of one desired sex. My mother argued that the sex of a child does not matter and emphasized that God has His own unique way of ensuring harmony in the society between men and women. From this discussion, it was evident about how one’s ethnicity background is influential in one’s perception towards certain issues.

My dad being raised in a society where the boy child was greatly honored than the girl child was noted to emphasize more on the importance of determining the sex of a child. My mother being a bit younger and having been raised through more modernized setting shared similar opinions with my younger brother.

Therefore the issue of one’s background upbringing should not be underrated when addressing certain issues and in particular gender issues, since those people that share similar views with my dad are be termed as being greatly affected by gender stratification, where boys are regarded as being more superior to girls.

All the four considered human cloning as an unethical issue that tries to rob God his procreation powers which was only vested on humans upon their coming together through sexual intercourse.

My mother and dad greatly objected cloning since they complained that it will foster homosexuality since this is the only method that can guarantee the gay an opportunity to get children a situation that has greatly been used by many Christian to question the practicability of the gay marriages.

Similarly, all my family members rejected the idea of human cloning as a means of body replacement. They considered this cloning aspect as only a myth that is only founded in the scientist dreams.

The cloning idea that predicts the chances of replacement of human body is like giving humans the power to resurrect which is out of context and contradicts the Christian teachings that believes that it is only God the ‘Yahweh’ who has the power to resurrect people.

My family members all being Christians felt very offended by this proposition. This explained how one’s religion belief is very influential in determining one perception of the things or action that one interacts with.

From the proceeding discussion, it is apparent that different age groups possess diverse views concerning some of the issues that we face in our dairy activities. The research indicated that ethnicity, gender, religion and education featured as very important factors that determine how people perceive issues.

The older generation that is here represented by my dad is known to be more affected by gender stratification where they assign more importance to boys than to girls. My mother who belongs to the middle group does not suffer from gender stratification and appears to reason in similar manner to the youthful generation which is represented by my younger brother and sister.

Religion is noted as a strong factor that influences how people attach values to those things that they interact with which intern influences how they interpret situations. Religion beliefs are known as very strong forces that have resulted to very distinct decisions.

Education was also noted as an important ingredient factor that determines how we interpret situations. Education helps individuals become is noted in the discussion as bringing forth the enlightenment in society by equipping them with appropriate information and skills that help them make informed choices. My family members being all learned enabled them to address the posed questions appropriately.

Since they were all well knowledgeable and conversant with the topic about human cloning, they made their contributions and adequately defended their points with relevant backing. Therefore, education is an important factor in any society as it determines how individuals in that society perceives, expresses or reacts to diverse situations.

A society that is not well educated is associated with being ignorant and takes many things for granted, while an educated society is characterized with being well informed and employs very strategic approaches while dealing with its problems, without taking anything for granted.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2018, June 4). The Concept of Human Cloning. https://ivypanda.com/essays/human-cloning/

"The Concept of Human Cloning." IvyPanda , 4 June 2018, ivypanda.com/essays/human-cloning/.

IvyPanda . (2018) 'The Concept of Human Cloning'. 4 June.

IvyPanda . 2018. "The Concept of Human Cloning." June 4, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/human-cloning/.

1. IvyPanda . "The Concept of Human Cloning." June 4, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/human-cloning/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "The Concept of Human Cloning." June 4, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/human-cloning/.

• Cloning: Genetically Identical Copy
• Testing Makeup Products on Rabbits
• A Gang Known as the Dead Rabbits
• The Biomedical Model of Health in Medicine
• Kinship of Family
• Anthropological Comparison between the Chinese and Hindu Society
• Strawberries History
• Establishment of the rye grass

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• v.7(7); 2006 Jul

Never let me clone?: Countering an ethical argument against the reproductive cloning of humans

Yvette pearson.

1 Yvette Pearson is Co-Director of the Institute for Ethics and Public Affairs in the Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, USA. ude.udo@nosraepy

In the March 2006 issue of EMBO reports , Christof Tannert, a bioethicist at the Max Delbrück Research Centre in Berlin, Germany, presented a moral argument against human reproductive cloning on the basis of Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative ( Tannert, 2006 ). In this article, I address some problems with Tannert's views and show that our concerns about this prospective procedure should prompt us to scrutinize carefully the conventional procreative practices and attitudes. Indeed, if we set aside objections that are grounded in genetic determinism, many of the offensive features of human cloning are identical to problems with procreation by more conventional means, including both old-fashioned procreation and assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs). Oddly enough, many see only cloning as problematic, whereas identical problems with everyday procreation continue to go unnoticed.

In his article, Tannert endeavours to provide us with a sound argument that human reproductive cloning “violates our basic moral principles”. He grounds his argument in Immanuel Kant's central moral principle of respect for all humanity, which the great philosopher formulated as: “Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end, never as a means only” ( Kant, 1785 ). In essence, Kant's principle prohibits using rational creatures—humans—as mere instruments to attain one's own selfish goals. Tannert claims that human reproductive cloning—through somatic cell nuclear transfer or embryo splitting—is immoral because it violates this principle by using a human—the clone—for egoistical purposes. However, as I demonstrate, this assertion is problematic. Although treating people created by cloning as mere means—for example, as organ banks—would be morally unacceptable, it is misleading to identify cloning itself as the core problem. Furthermore, although Kant's respect for humanity is of great practical value, it does not provide us with adequate guidance with regard to cloning. His moral principle clearly applies to existing people, but it falls short in helping us to determine whether a particular means of creating people is morally permissible. As Deborah Johnson explained in another context, often “moral concepts and principles are ambiguous in their application to new technology” ( Johnson, 2005 ).

If we ever hope to figure out why the prospect of human cloning, especially reproductive cloning, is so unsettling, we must first remove any marginal problems that infiltrate the arguments in this debate, including Tannert's. First, despite his explicit rejection of genetic determinism, Tannert ends up appealing to it. Second, he assumes that only selfishness and egoism could motivate someone to pursue reproductive cloning. Third, he makes the assumption that a cloned person would inevitably be treated as a mere means. Fourth, his appeal to Kant's moral principle fails to clarify where the line should be drawn with respect to research cloning.

When engaging in discussions about cloning, genetic engineering or procreation, there is a strong and prevalent tendency for arguments to become entangled in genetic determinism. Also known as genetic reductionism or biological determinism, it holds that the physical and mental traits and behaviour of an individual are ultimately determined by his or her genotype. This myopic view fails to acknowledge that the physical and social environment of an organism also has an important role in controlling whether and how genes interact with each other and with the organism's environment. Genetic determinism has dangerous implications as it might encourage its believers to neglect obligations towards fellow humans. For example, an employer might conclude that he or she has no obligation to reduce the levels of toxic substances in the workplace, because an employee's risk of developing, say, cancer is solely a function of their genes. That is, embracing genetic determinism encourages the view that individuals, not environmental or socioeconomic conditions, are to blame ( Proctor, 1998 ; de Melo-Martín, 2005 ).

Although treating people created by cloning as mere means…would be morally unacceptable, it is misleading to identify cloning itself as the core problem

One corollary of genetic determinism is the mistaken view that genetic identity is equivalent to personal identity. Yet one of Tannert's major arguments against cloning is that genetic identity carries great weight; he claims that it is wrong to “impose the genetic identity of any individual on another” ( Tannert, 2006 ). But it is not clear that cloning restricts the autonomy of the clone any more than would reproducing with one particular individual rather than another or, in the case of ARTs, with gametes from one donor rather than another. In both cases, we place limits on the possible genetic outcome of the offspring, but in neither case is it clear whether or precisely how these limitations have an impact on its autonomy. In an article on the pros and cons of human reproductive cloning, Dan Brock reminds us that the idea of a unique identity “predates the development of modern genetics” ( Brock, 1998 ). Along these lines, Brock also questions the dubious concept of a “right to a unique genotype” and suggests that the concept is incoherent, not legitimate, and not to be taken seriously ( Brock, 1998 ). To place so much weight on genetic identity is, in effect, to invoke genetic determinism. Tannert's claim that cloning is wrong because it “imposes an arbitrary restriction on the clone's individuality and/or external determination of a future person—and therefore violates its autonomy” goes against his preceding rejection of genetic determinism. If identical twins are autonomous agents despite their shared genetic identity, there is no good reason to think that a clone would lack the capacity for autonomous decision-making.

It is not clear why cloning should be considered either more or less arbitrary than decisions to procreate through more conventional means

Tannert finds it particularly problematic that a clone, unlike offspring created through the combination of genetic material from two individuals, is “the result of deliberate human decision and action… and is therefore, through this arbitrariness, an artefact”. Although a great deal of procreation occurs ‘accidentally', it is still the result of some deliberate human action, be it intercourse or several visits to an ART clinic. It is not clear why cloning should be considered either more or less arbitrary than decisions to procreate through more conventional means. The emphasis on the means of procreation also detracts from the more important criterion for determining the moral permissibility of procreation, namely, how offspring will fare once they are born. Merely creating people by cloning need not restrict their autonomy any more than procreation through intercourse or ARTs. Granted, as has been shown by cloning experiments with animals, creating humans by cloning at this stage is likely to be disastrous for the clone; it might be impossible to advance to a point at which cloning techniques do not present an unacceptable risk for individual clones, women, their fetuses and/or newborns. But if these risks of physical harm were eliminated, it is uncertain whether cloning would constrain autonomy any more than any other means of procreation.

Tannert claims that cloning is wrong because “it only fulfils the selfish interest of a creator”, but cloning need not be motivated by either selfishness or the desire to replicate a particular genotype. Although cloning, by definition, means the replication of an existing genotype, the motives to do so can vary. Along these lines, Dena Davis draws a distinction between duplicative and logistical cloning: in the case of duplicative cloning, “it is the genetic replication itself that is the attraction,” whereas the primary motive in cases of logistical cloning is to have a child ( Davis, 2001 ). However, the motives for duplicative cloning are usually on the basis of gross misconceptions about cloning, which abound in films, television programmes—including those that claim to be news programmes—and science-fiction novels ( Maio, 2006 ). There is a nearly universal agreement that duplicative cloning would be downright ludicrous as well as immoral, and only those in a state of intractable ignorance would want to pursue it. As shown in Kazuo Ishiguro's novel Never Let Me Go , even fictional characters no longer buy into genetic determinism. For example, the narrator Kathy H, herself a clone, makes the following observation: “Our models were an irrelevance, a technical necessity for bringing us into the world… It was up to each of us to make our own lives… It is daft to assume you'll have the same life as your model” ( Ishiguro, 2005 ).

Logistical cloning, which would be a means to circumvent obstacles to procreation that cannot be overcome by alternative methods, might therefore be morally permissible in some rare cases. If both partners were sterile, cloning would be the only means for them to have a genetically related child. A woman might want to create a genetically related child without having sex or using donated sperm. She might find the practice of buying gametes morally objectionable as it allows individuals to procreate without fulfilling any obligations towards the child. Moreover, she might not want to incur risks by using sperm from an anonymous donor; he might have failed to disclose important details about his medical history, or he might pursue his desire to have a role in the child's life and thereby cause legal problems and/or emotional upheaval for the child. Another case in which logistical cloning might be legitimate would be if the man is sterile, the couple believes the use of third-party gametes to be morally objectionable and both partners want a genetic connection to the child. Logistical cloning, assuming it could be done without exposing women or children to any greater risk than that by other means of procreation, might be morally defensible in such cases.

Although cloning, by definition, means the replication of an existing genotype, the motives to do so can vary

If we accept such arguments for logistical cloning, then cloning does not necessarily mean “using one person—the clone—as the means to fulfil the desires of another person: the clone generator”, as Tannert claims. If fulfilling the desires of the procreator to have a child constitutes an immoral use of another person, we must also concede that a great deal of ‘natural' procreation is immoral for the same reason. It is not at all uncommon for individuals or couples to create children to fulfil several desires: to pass on one's genes; to ensure that there will be enough people to work the farm, carry on the family business, or care for the procreators in their old age; to produce a ‘saviour sibling' to save the life of an existing child; to make money, as in cases of full surrogacy; or simply to satisfy an inexplicable but intense desire to have a child. Cases of creating a child for its own sake are more the exception than the rule, if they exist at all.

There is probably no decision of similar magnitude that is more arbitrary than the one to have a child. On the face of it, rationality and procreation seem to be extremely odd bedfellows; indeed, it is often the absence of rationality that leads to conception. Although we might prefer individuals to be more thoughtful about their procreative decisions, they are rarely criticized when such careful deliberation is absent or when their decisions are obviously problematic.

Even if individuals do not put a great deal of thought into procreative decisions, they might speculate about the possible outcomes of their actions and recognize that these possibilities are limited. These limitations are also arbitrary, insofar as they are the direct consequence of choosing one particular person over the three billion other people around the world with whom one might have chosen to mate. In some cases, these limitations can be disconcerting for the prospective parents or other family members, including existing children. If we want to construct a morally sound objection to cloning, we must confront widely accepted procreative practices and subject them to scrutiny, lest our objections to reproductive cloning ring hollow. Ultimately, it seems that we must choose between rejecting many of our procreative practices as morally problematic or conceding that reproductive cloning is acceptable.

On the face of it, rationality and procreation seem to be extremely odd bedfellows; indeed, it is often the absence of rationality that leads to conception

Ultimately, the means of procreation are morally irrelevant unless they present a significant risk to offspring or parents, particularly the mother. This is true of cloning at present, and it is for this reason that we should refrain from creating offspring in this manner. But this is not to claim that cloning is morally impermissible because it involves using another as a mere means; instead the claim is that it would be wrong to create a person by cloning because that person would probably be born in what Joel Feinberg calls a “harmful condition” ( Feinberg, 1984 ).

As logistical reproductive cloning would not automatically violate a person's right to self-determination or cut off a child's prospect of future autonomy, it is erroneous to conclude that cloning always constitutes using another person—the clone—as a mere means. Setting aside circumstances under which conception is likely to pose a risk to the offspring—for example, if either parent carries a devastating hereditary disease—there is nothing intrinsically wrong with bringing a person into existence by one means instead of another. It is important to place greater emphasis on the actual treatment of the offspring and not how he or she came to be; if cloning is the problem, then not only reproductive cloning but also research cloning is problematic. The latter could also be construed as being used for self-interested or selfish motives, such as to advance the researcher's career. But there is a more pressing problem related to research cloning, to which I will now turn.

When we talk about reproductive cloning, we generally assume that the clone will be “live and viable” ( Gogarty, 2003 ), and ideally, if clones were to be created, we would want them to be live, viable and in good health. But how should we deal with cloned humans that are beyond the pre-embryo stage but unlikely to become “live and viable” offspring? These latter beings are no more ‘people' than are pre-embryos or embryos, and we therefore do not violate their autonomy. If the entities in question are non-sentient non-people and lack the capacity to become people who will experience pain or suffering as a result of having been used in cloning research, an appeal to well-established principles, such as the principle of respect for people or the principle of non-maleficence, is of no help.

To discriminate against people because of the manner in which they were conceived would be as unacceptable as discrimination on the basis of skin colour or sex

Although legally, in some countries, the limit until which human embryos can be destroyed to harvest stem cells is drawn at 14 days, it does not follow from Tannert's argument that researchers are morally required to stop there. In fact, given the significance Tannert places on implanting an embryo in a woman's uterus, combined with his claim that an artificial uterus would deprive an embryo of “an essential condition for becoming a human”, the implication is that research on embryos or fetuses beyond 14 days would be justifiable. Clearly, if such a being is missing a necessary condition for becoming a person, it cannot become a person; hence, a being that develops to 40 weeks or beyond by ectogenesis would not be protected by Kant's principle of respect for people. Undoubtedly, using cloned embryos and fetuses in research would provide us with more and better information about the efficacy and safety of cloning, and Tannert's view gives us no reason to refrain from doing so. In the end, his view about research cloning could be construed as too permissive, and his argument provides a great deal of ammunition for those who advocate a ban on all types of cloning, including therapeutic cloning.

Although it might seem obvious, many do not distinguish between cloning and its product, which, in the case of logistical cloning, is a child who would be nurtured, educated and loved by its parents. There is no good reason to think that it would be morally permissible to treat clones differently to the way we treat other offspring or adults. To discriminate against people because of the manner in which they were conceived would be as unacceptable as discrimination on the basis of skin colour or sex. Although such prejudices do persist, discrimination against people created through ARTs is, to my knowledge, nonexistent. Various new methods of ART have been invented during the past 28 years, and it seems unlikely that adding a new one to the repertoire will lead to an upsurge in discrimination against offspring created by cloning. Although there are concerns about treating offspring as objects instead of humans, this is relevant not only for offspring created through ARTs—which in the future might include cloning—but also for offspring conceived in the old-fashioned way. Thus, our focus should be on obligations towards those whom we create, not on how they were created.

…our focus should be on obligations towards those whom we create, not on how they were created

We should refrain from making assumptions that the means by which one was conceived or the conditions into which one is born entail anything about what sort of people they will become or how we should treat them. As humans, we should make use of our unique capacity for moral agency, in particular our capacity to have and fulfil obligations. As Kant put it, the very act of bringing another person into existence means that parents have an obligation “to make their children—as far as their power goes—as contented with the condition thus acquired” ( Kant, 1790 ). Treating clones as inferior to other humans is still safely in the realm of fiction, and it should stay that way. Fortunately, it is well within our grasp to ensure that it does.

• Brock DW (1998) Human cloning: an assessment of the ethical issues pro and con . In Nussbaum MC, Sunstein CR (eds) Clones and Clones: Facts and Fantasies About Human Cloning pp 141–164. New York, NY, USA: Norton [ Google Scholar ]
• Davis DS (2001) Genetic Dilemmas: Reproductive Technology, Parental Choices, and Children's Futures . New York, NY, USA: Routledge [ Google Scholar ]
• de Melo-Martín I (2005) Taking Biology Seriously: What Biology Can and Cannot Tell Us About Moral and Public Policy Issues . New York, NY, USA: Rowman & Littlefield [ Google Scholar ]
• Feinberg J (1984) The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law . Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press [ Google Scholar ]
• Gogarty B (2003) What exactly is an exact copy? And why it matters when trying to ban human reproductive cloning in Australia . J Med Ethics 29 : 84–89 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ishiguro K (2005) Never Let Me Go . New York, NY, USA: Alfred A. Knopf [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson DG (2005) Computer ethics . In Frey RG, Wellman CH (eds) A Companion to Applied Ethics pp 608–619. Malden, MA, USA: Blackwell [ Google Scholar ]
• Kant I (1785) Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals [translated by LB White]. New York, NY, USA: Macmillan [ Google Scholar ]
• Kant I (1790) The science of right [translated by W Hastie] . In Hutchins RM (ed; 1952) Great Books of the Western World pp 397–458. Chicago, IL, USA: Encyclopaedia Brittanica [ Google Scholar ]
• Maio G (2006) Cloning in the media and popular culture . EMBO Rep 7 : 241–245 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Proctor RN (1998) Resisting reductionism from the Human Genome Project . In Pence GE (ed) Classic Works in Medical Ethics: Core Philosophical Readings pp 341–353. Boston, MA, USA: McGraw-Hill [ Google Scholar ]
• Tannert C (2006) Thou shalt not clone . EMBO Rep 7 : 238–240 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

We use cookies to enhance our website for you. Proceed if you agree to this policy or learn more about it.

• Essay Database >
• Essay Examples >
• Essays Topics >
• Essay on Pregnancy

Free Argumentative Essay On Human Cloning

Type of paper: Argumentative Essay

Topic: Pregnancy , Human , Cloning , Body , Life , Science , Abortion , Health

Words: 1400

Published: 02/03/2020

ORDER PAPER LIKE THIS

Introduction

Human cloning issue is not new to us. It has been topic of debates for many years now, refuting whether or not this type of procedure will be beneficial to human race. Now that scientists have duplicated lambs through cloning, we know that generating similar genetic duplicates of humans are also likely possible. The procedure is novel though the idea is not. A clone is a cell, tissues, organ, or a whole organism created by asexual duplication whose genetic information is similar to the parent cell or organism. Lately, cloning has become an area of major study as latest improvements in technological innovation have introduced about the likelihood of cloning tissues, body parts and even human like creatures and humans. Recent technological innovation has made it possible to separate and make duplicates of individual genes that direct an organism's development. This breakthrough has been the approach of scientists saying that this will or may lengthen the life of a person, while others are refuting the ethical procedures and the advantages of this process which many scientists are claiming. This essay will be written in a manner of differentiating the aspects human cloning. In addition, some possible advantage of human cloning will be included in this study as well as the possible negative effect and reasons why human cloning should not be practiced. View point of an ordinary person will also be included to state and explains the negative side of this long debated topic which is the human cloning; negative effects to health, religious beliefs and human race as a whole.

About Human Cloning

Based on Amir Afshar’s (n.d.) article there are two types of reproductive cloning, the first one is the Blastomere Separation or the splitting of embryo and the other one is the somatic cell nuclear transfer technology (Afshar, n.d.). He says that the first type is like copying the genome multiple times by creating and multiplying the cells on an embryo (Afshar, n.d.) This process is basically like making a photocopy or a replica of an embryo, in a layman’s term. This can be advantageous in some ways because parents who want to have new born twins or triplets can be possible through this process. Process will still be natural because everything will be from the embryo itself. Another good thing that human cloning may possibly give is the reversion or delaying the human aging process. Based on Sabine Reinhold’s (2002), we can reverse our own aging by using cloning. It works like this: Each duplicated cell is a brand new cell. It is the exact duplicate from a current cell but is has the advantage that it is not as old as the original one. If an individual would duplicate or duplicate his body tissues and have these tissues implanted into the body when he is older, this individual could renew his body (Reinhold, 2002). This is good; in fact, an older person would not have to worry that much with his or her physical age and physical sickness because this process can be ideal to keep one’s health as if he or she is years younger than the actual age. This can also be another breakthrough with human health. In addition Reinhold (2002) says that in these process patients who are suffering from diseases can possibly be cured sooner and through more effective procedure. This is especially with those patients who need to undergo an organ transplant but cannot seem to have an organ donor, if not; their body rejects the donated organ. With this breakthrough, they don’t need to take too much medicine after the transplant which may also lower their life quality (Reinhold, 2002). Scientists claim that human cloning would give a lot of benefits to humans physically, mentally, and socially. And it can also give self esteem back to those who are no longer capable of giving birth or those who are suffering from infertility problem. Dan Brock (n.d.) claims that cloning would be another way of fighting infertility which many people are suffering from (Brock, n.d.). The process would allow women who have no ovary to give birth and would also allow men who have a low or no sperm count to develop offspring that can be considered as their own, biologically. Another remarkable possibility of human cloning would be enabling couples or parents to replace someone who was very special for them, like a child who died (Brock, n.d.). This one was not even thought by scientists centuries ago, having the possibility of bringing back someone from death, sounds like a movie scenario, but that can be possible.

Opposing Viewpoint

There are many possibilities that cloning can provide to human beings; possibilities of making life more abundant, in a way that health can be managed easily, diseases can be cured faster, and it may bring back death to life, these are some of the possible positive effects of human cloning. However, everything that has strength has its own weakness as well. There are opposing claims about human cloning as being good to humans. Reinhold (2002) claims that given the possibility that human cloning may extend human life by reversing the aging process of a person; it may give problems on the other hand. Reinhold (2002) says that we already have the issue that there are too many old individuals and not enough teenagers to pay for their retirement pension. This issue would get even larger. Also old individuals may be actual healthier but we have no medication or strategy to replenish their mind. For some individuals with psychological sickness this synthetically extended life might not be value living (Reinhold, 2002). In this scenario we cannot consider a person to be totally healthy if he or she is suffering from mental illness even though his or her body is reverted to be younger.

In the past several years, human cloning has gone from a lab dream to a international discussion. There are many justifications assisting both bad and the good results of individual cloning. Human cloning increases a lot of complicated questions about individual freedom, pride, and identification. Will individual cloning be an excellent step for man, or will it lead to moral abyss? This question is asked all the time. With excellent research one would understand that with the execution of human cloning, there would be a huge healthcare and non-medical progression. People with excellent or psychological features would be duplicated, large military could be designed, single and unable to conceive parents could have children, and certain varieties could be stored from annihilation. Contrary to all the advantages of individual cloning, there are more disadvantages related to the topic, mostly moral and ethical disadvantages coming from ethicist, psychologists, theologians and religious groups, as well as many mandated laws against the cloning of humans. Cloning could also cause a serious over population problems. There are many factors why the law does not allow the people to do human cloning. Human cloning will create this globe populated by the similar individuals. You can suppose if individual cloning is permitted then the individuals around you are duplicated. You will discover a lot of same individuals in your life. Then, there will be many uncertainty and issues about the same thinking because the duplicates of the human will have the same attribute, overall look, and the way of thinking. Furthermore, it is not appropriate by God’s law. Based on the Bible scriptures, infants are created from men and women with their sperms and eggs. So, human cloning is not allowed by the law and God. Human cloning should not be allowed and practice for it will create more possible problems while resolving partial as a whole.

Works Cited

Afshar, Amir. "The ethics of Cloning." COSMOS - Home. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Apr. 2013. Brock, Dan. "Cloning Human Beings." Bioethics Research Library at Georgetown University. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Apr. 2013. Reinhold, Sabine. "The advantages and disadvantages of cloning humans as well as the " GRIN | Veröffentlichen Sie Ihre Bachelorarbeit, Masterarbeit, Hausarbeit, Diplomarbeit, Dissertation und Referat. GRIN, 24 Apr. 2002. Web. 26 Apr. 2013. Woodward, John. The Ethics of Human Cloning. Detroit, Mich: Thomson/Gale, 2005. Print.

Cite this page

Share with friends using:

Removal Request

Finished papers: 1208

This paper is created by writer with

If you want your paper to be:

Well-researched, fact-checked, and accurate

Original, fresh, based on current data

Eloquently written and immaculately formatted

275 words = 1 page double-spaced

Get your papers done by pros!

Other Pages

Art creative writings, leadership creative writings, drugs creative writings, law creative writings, government creative writings, united states creative writings, volunteer personal statements, immune research proposals, triangulation research proposals, death row research proposals, independent variable research proposals, launching research proposals, juror research proposals, independent business plans, handling business plans, research paper on follow of tradition, the conspiracy of catiline sallusts theories in contemporary society term paper examples, nursing public health movement nineteenth century to present essay example, research paper on entrepreneurship character in the american culture, getting a degree in business personal statement, case study on managing people information and knowledge, research paper on biological and genetic effects of radiation, precepts of scientific management term paper example, characteristics of external messages course work examples, example of essay on launch windows, example of modernity of the final decision term paper, hiring and variable pay plan case study, carlos slim helu biography examples, the andromeda strain movie review sample, kinetic energy research paper examples, effects of new media technology research paper example, example of fax machine report, u s latin american relations critical thinking examples, report on as the chief information officer i made the following decisions made for this round, global economics and poverty essay examples, lime essays, anesthesiology essays, stud essays, tussle essays, lycra essays, stump essays, xylophone essays, yukio essays.

Password recovery email has been sent to [email protected]

Use your new password to log in

You are not register!

By clicking Register, you agree to our Terms of Service and that you have read our Privacy Policy .

Now you can download documents directly to your device!

Check your email! An email with your password has already been sent to you! Now you can download documents directly to your device.

or Use the QR code to Save this Paper to Your Phone

The sample is NOT original!

Short on a deadline?

Don't waste time. Get help with 11% off using code - GETWOWED

No, thanks! I'm fine with missing my deadline