The Ethics Of Human Therapeutic Cloning

1 essay on the ethics of Human Theraputic Cloning.

24 hours to complete the assignment.

2000 words worth to write.

It’s ironic that it had to come at a time when the First Lady of Malaysia passed away due to breast cancer. Maybe most of you won’t see this as irony, but well…trust me…there is irony there especially when you realise that scientific research is limited by our moral obligations towards things we fear and have no understanding off.

Research that can save lives should we take of our gloves and actually play God like we were meant to do in this business. The more I read up on what I’m supposed to be writing about, the more I realize that our own short sightedness and fear is what’s killing people. The guidelines are already there, the rules are already set, so why do you have to come up with weird ideas that puts the fear of God in everyone?

Sometimes I can’t understand people, they say they want to save lives but are not willing to go all the way unless someone they care for deeply or they themselves have been afflicted by the condition that requires you to go all the way. If people were less self-absorbed about their so called high-standing moral principles in regards to the advancement of the human race, the only thing we’d have to worry about what movie shall we watch on a Saturday night. Nothing else in the world would bother us simply because we know at the end of it…things will not just be set right…but set better in comparison to what was before.

So yeah, I’m not pro-life. Not at all. I’m pro-progress (which is a redundant word) which means I screwed morality a long time ago and the only ethical guidelines I hold to conforms within the lines “Do No Harm”, the rest of course is just arguing schematics. An embryo isn’t a human being and neither should cloned embryos be considered as one. With that…maybe in the future, we’ll save a couple thousand lives from death or a lifetime of immune surpressing drugs…or something far worse than death.

I think that’s much better than a moral standing on something you don’t understand. Don’t you think so?

7 thoughts on “The Ethics Of Human Therapeutic Cloning

  1. but set better in comparison to what was before.

    For some people, that’s not an option or choice they would make. Thye’re afraid that if it’s better than before, it will make them redundant. This can be applied to a lot of cases, partcularly religion. I’m assuming that they are the ones who are against cloning?

    My only point of contention with you is about this:

    An embryo isn’t a human being and neither should cloned embryos be considered as one.

    It’s alive and perhaps the only thing it lacks is sentience. But then again, that’s true about most of our politicians. Should we destroy them (the embryos) because of that? Because some people want to make mileage from them? Maybe they are a burden, but…

    Bleh. Call it a nostalgia for human life.

  2. Well there is a correlation between pro-life supporters and religion.

    Anyway, I’ll post my essay here when I’m done. It should cover the important scopes of it.

  3. Thank you. It should be interesting to read, considering that I wrote about the cost of cloning from a financial perspective two years ago. :p

  4. i’m a bit torn on this one, but since i lean more towards pro-choice than pro-life when it comes to abortion, it’s only natural that i agree with you. cloning embryos for stem cells is not the same as cloning designer babies for sale. as long as it can save and improve lives, my vote is for embryo cloning.

  5. Lol, looks like I’m not the only one who had to write an essay on this controversial topic.

    I think that therapeutic cloning is a contradiction of its name. It causes deliberate harm to a POTENTIAL human being; an embryo, with the whole creation of a human embryo through cloning and then extracting stem cells from it. I believe it’s highly dangerous and has a significantly low success rate.

    “Fear is what’s killing people”

    I think that’s where you’re wrong. Cloning is what’s killing people. Maybe our scope of ‘people’ are different.

    I have nothing against saving lives, of course. So long as by saving lives we’re not harming others in the process.

  6. Highly dangerous…to whom? No one is harmed from it and yes our scope does differ because I do not consider embryos are people. Note you also said potential people hence they have not become people yet. Hence there is no cause for harm something that cannot feel harm. Anyway, if you’re interested, wait for me to put down my essay tomorrow. Should be interesting.

  7. The word “potential” is controversial. You say that these embryos do not qualify as humans yet… who’s controlling that factor? Does the embryo get to decide it’s gestation? No, that’s the lab scientst who are litterally playing god, deciding how long and how far these embroys are allowed to live. And yes they do live, the go through mitosis, which is a state of life. These cells are granted for a life no longer than the amount required so we can take what we want from them and discard the rest.
    In the end the debate comes down to 2 groups: those who rank the medical treatments that might possibly result in cures as an all means neccesary to sure those who are among us now, and the anti cloning advocators that beleive that there has to be another way to research thse diseases than by the means that science is propsing. This is not a morally incoherent position, merely a finely balanced one.
    Personally I would not be comfortable in advocating this therapy because of the beliefs I have (not religious at all) and what the possible effects could be on society (the walmartization, and the viability of this research. Do you realy believe that ther are going to be enough embryos to go around to every person who needs these treatments?) There are too many what ifs with this research.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *