In “Wisdom of Repugnance” in his book “Ethics of Human Cloning” Leon Kass blames the willingness of people to entertain and use alternative forms of human reproduction on the media and being “softened up” Kass contends that it is procedure like test tube babies, surrogacy and invitro-fertilization that has opened the door to the possibility of cloning. He believes that these changes threaten to change the connections within the family dynamic because cloning allows the people to reproduce outside of the typical male-female relationship. The ability to clone will change the meaning of what a family is. According to Kass that would “undermine the justification and support that biological parenthood gives to a monogamous marriage” In this paper
…show more content…
This is only an issue if one subscribes to the notion that a person’s life is determined based on their genome. If a person is seen as the result of their experiences, then this is a concept that is irrelevant. There is also the idea that cloned children would not be created for themselves but for a purpose. So therefore they would be valued as a means rather than for themselves. De Melo-Martin counters with the fact that a cloned child can be given value as both a person and a means and besides just because the clone would have the same DNA does not mean that they would have the same traits or abilities. Supporters of cloning often use the following three arguments (1) They contend that cloning is just another technology that enables people to have genetic offspring. (2) The purport that cloning is another tool in the fight against genetic disease (3) Cloning will allow people to clone dead loved ones. De Mel-Martin believes that if these arguments are true then we have even more reason to go through with …show more content…
Yes, having a child through cloning, surrogacy or invitro is a different form of reproduction, but that does not mean that it is wrong. Plus, these non-traditional methods of reproduction allow couples or women to have the biological children they may not be able to have naturally (2) The belief that a cloned child would not have their own individuality. The fact that Kass, who I would guess to be educated believes this, shows in my opinion his ignorance and bias on the subject. I will be open minded enough to give him the benefit of having a lack of knowledge because his paper was written in 1997 and there have been a number of changes in the scientific community that he would not have been aware of. The thing is just because two people share the same genetic coding does not mean that the DNA coding both people manifest in the same way. Basically, this means that a person’s clone could look nothing like them even though they are genetically the same. This is because the genetic markers may end up lining up differently (3) The idea that clones would affect family dynamics. This assertion is mind boggling. The cloned child is not the original and so the family dynamics need not be any different than they would be if the woman had given birth to a child that was conceived with two parents (4) Cloning opens the door to
This is only an issue if one subscribes to the notion that a person’s life is determined based on their genome. If a person is seen as the result of their experiences, then this is a concept that is irrelevant. There is also the idea that cloned children would not be created for themselves but for a purpose. So therefore they would be valued as a means rather than for themselves. De Melo-Martin counters with the fact that a cloned child can be given value as both a person and a means and besides just because the clone would have the same DNA does not mean that they would have the same traits or abilities. Supporters of cloning often use the following three arguments (1) They contend that cloning is just another technology that enables people to have genetic offspring. (2) The purport that cloning is another tool in the fight against genetic disease (3) Cloning will allow people to clone dead loved ones. De Mel-Martin believes that if these arguments are true then we have even more reason to go through with …show more content…
Yes, having a child through cloning, surrogacy or invitro is a different form of reproduction, but that does not mean that it is wrong. Plus, these non-traditional methods of reproduction allow couples or women to have the biological children they may not be able to have naturally (2) The belief that a cloned child would not have their own individuality. The fact that Kass, who I would guess to be educated believes this, shows in my opinion his ignorance and bias on the subject. I will be open minded enough to give him the benefit of having a lack of knowledge because his paper was written in 1997 and there have been a number of changes in the scientific community that he would not have been aware of. The thing is just because two people share the same genetic coding does not mean that the DNA coding both people manifest in the same way. Basically, this means that a person’s clone could look nothing like them even though they are genetically the same. This is because the genetic markers may end up lining up differently (3) The idea that clones would affect family dynamics. This assertion is mind boggling. The cloned child is not the original and so the family dynamics need not be any different than they would be if the woman had given birth to a child that was conceived with two parents (4) Cloning opens the door to