Repugnance is the extreme feeling of distaste or repulsion. But does repugnance mean something it is morally wrong? Leon R. Kass would argue that it does; especially when it comes to human cloning. I agree with Kass, there is something seriously disturbing about human cloning and it should not be practiced or made legal. Although I agree with his stance on the matter, I think his arguments are weak. In my opinion, Kass’ repugnance argument is his weakest argument. Some of his other weaker arguments are that human clones would have a distorted identity and individuality. Also, that parents of clones would dehumanize their cloned child. Kass does have some stronger arguments. For example, human cloning is manufacturing children. I also agree
…show more content…
I believe this is when his arguments could have become stronger. But they don’t. I agree that it does feel like manufacturing children but Kass argues this will lead to dehumanizing the cloned child and parents will have false expectations of what the clone will be like. He makes another big mistake by relating cloning to invitro fertilization or IVF. In my opinion this is a mistake because these days invitro fertilization is accepted by almost everyone and has helped millions of people become parents. When he relates human cloning and invitro fertilization I think he loses a lot of people who might agree with him because they do agree with IVF. Also, in my opinion these are two very different things. IVF is simply fertilizing an egg with a sperm outside of the body, using two sets of genetic information to create a child. Cloning is using one set of genetic material and forcing it to divide. It is not fertilization at all. I believe this would have been a better argument for Kass to use. It also backs up my first argument against repugnance. Many people were repulsed by the thought of IVF, and most have come around to the …show more content…
You can put rules and regulations around cloning but you cannot stop this from getting into the wrong hands and someone using it for terrifying purposes. Kass is right, cloning should be banned in humans. I myself still had a hard time figuring out why I thought cloning was wrong after reading Kass’ arguments. Kass should have stuck with creating a stronger argument against the technological, liberal and meliorist views. I agree that there is definitely some repugnance to the idea of human cloning but Kass should not have argued that the repugnance we feel for human cloning is a reflection of a violation on nature and moral. There are many other arguments to be made here. Kass should have spent more time on the slippery slope argument or the fact that this is narcissistic and unnecessary. There are too many possibilities for abuse and far too many unknowns. Saying that cloning will result in identity and individuality issues or the dehumanizing of children is simply not a strong enough argument. There is no denying that there is something extremely narcissistic and arrogant about wanting to clone yourself. In my opinion it is even stranger to want to clone someone else, no matter what the reason is. I say we stick to creation where human beings come together, male DNA and female DNA. Human cloning needs to remain
I believe this is when his arguments could have become stronger. But they don’t. I agree that it does feel like manufacturing children but Kass argues this will lead to dehumanizing the cloned child and parents will have false expectations of what the clone will be like. He makes another big mistake by relating cloning to invitro fertilization or IVF. In my opinion this is a mistake because these days invitro fertilization is accepted by almost everyone and has helped millions of people become parents. When he relates human cloning and invitro fertilization I think he loses a lot of people who might agree with him because they do agree with IVF. Also, in my opinion these are two very different things. IVF is simply fertilizing an egg with a sperm outside of the body, using two sets of genetic information to create a child. Cloning is using one set of genetic material and forcing it to divide. It is not fertilization at all. I believe this would have been a better argument for Kass to use. It also backs up my first argument against repugnance. Many people were repulsed by the thought of IVF, and most have come around to the …show more content…
You can put rules and regulations around cloning but you cannot stop this from getting into the wrong hands and someone using it for terrifying purposes. Kass is right, cloning should be banned in humans. I myself still had a hard time figuring out why I thought cloning was wrong after reading Kass’ arguments. Kass should have stuck with creating a stronger argument against the technological, liberal and meliorist views. I agree that there is definitely some repugnance to the idea of human cloning but Kass should not have argued that the repugnance we feel for human cloning is a reflection of a violation on nature and moral. There are many other arguments to be made here. Kass should have spent more time on the slippery slope argument or the fact that this is narcissistic and unnecessary. There are too many possibilities for abuse and far too many unknowns. Saying that cloning will result in identity and individuality issues or the dehumanizing of children is simply not a strong enough argument. There is no denying that there is something extremely narcissistic and arrogant about wanting to clone yourself. In my opinion it is even stranger to want to clone someone else, no matter what the reason is. I say we stick to creation where human beings come together, male DNA and female DNA. Human cloning needs to remain