The Morality Of Creating Life Research Essay

The Morality Of Creating Life Essay, Research Paper

The Morality of Creating Life

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

The thought of making life has intrigued people since the beginning of clip. Mary Shelly in her novel Frankenstein brought this thought to life. In this novel, Victor Frankenstein created life by utilizing advanced scientific discipline and trim organic structure parts. The thought of making life is a current contention. Technology now allows for the cloning of sheep. Surely, the ability to clone worlds can non be far off. It is necessary to put limitations on cloning research and to censor worlds cloning because human cloning is immoral. Furthermore, the outlooks placed on a cloned animal by society would be intolerable for the animal, and would take to its psychological death.

In the 19th century, the thought of making life was thought to be science fiction. A 19th century authorship, Mary Shelly & # 8217 ; s fresh Frankenstein, portrays Victor ( the Godhead ) as inexperienced person and the creative activity as immorality at the beginning of the novel. Subsequently, it becomes apparent that the monster was non evil when created, instead that the animal was made immorality by the environing environment. Victor & # 8217 ; s immediate response was, as Shelly writes, & # 8220 ; Great God! His xanthous tegument barely covered the work of musculuss and arterias beneath & # 8221 ; ( ? ? ) . The monster shortly understood that he was in fact horrid. Shelly writes, & # 8220 ; Knowing societal sentiment, the monster explained after his agonising daze of self-discovery, & # 8216 ; All work forces hate the deplorable & # 8217 ; & # 8221 ; ( ? ? ) . Whereas the cloning of worlds may non bring forth a being like Victor & # 8217 ; s creative activity, there is small uncertainty that society may respond harshly to this new type of being. The outlooks would be enlarged for the creative activity, which may take to negative effects for both the creative activity and society.

Society would be everlastingly changed one time a animal was cloned. Maureen Noelle McLane, writer of Literate Speciess: Populations, & # 8220 ; Humanities, & # 8221 ; and Frankenstein writes about the drastic impact of the creative activity on the society in Frankenstein. She writes, & # 8220 ; The monster is a job both for himself and for Victor ; more specifically, the monster forces what we might name the psychological re-mapping of the native human universe & # 8221 ; ( 967 ) . The drastic alterations that society could be forced to cover with could do jobs for the animal, but more so for society. Learning to cover with a being that knows it is the lone animal non reproduced sexually would be hard.

Learning to cover with the animal is non the lone job that society must accept. At the present clip, if worlds were to be cloned, many lives would be lost honing the process. John F. Kilner, manager of the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity in Bannockburn, Illinois and writer of Stop Cloning Around, notes that the cloning of sheep had 277 failed efforts, including the decease of some faulty ringers ( 10 ) . The thought of holding faulty human ringers deceasing is rather chilling. This fact seems to outweigh the good that could come about from cloning. For illustration, the cloning of wheat is done to give more grain and bears no moral branching. The cloning of worlds could besides decrease the singularity of worlds. As Kilner notes, & # 8220 ; ? human existences, made in the image of God, have a God-given self-respect that prevents us from sing other people simply as agencies to carry through our desires & # 8221 ; ( 10 ) . Besides, one must inquire who are the true parents of this creative activity. If it is produced in a research lab, is it so the physicians who cloned the creative activity, the giver of the cell, or other people involved in the process. Many adoptive kids are forced to cover with this inquiry. This sense of inquiring makes life intolerable for some adoptive kids and grownups.

The theory of cloning a peculiar person who was of great benefit to society to let them to go on their illustriousness for another coevals is badly founded. For case, if Mother Teresa were cloned, the environment of her community would make up one’s mind her personality. If she was raised in a household with no spiritual ties, there is a good opportunity that she may non be the Mother Teresa that society would anticipate. Another job of cloning celebrated people, lost loved 1s, or friends are the unjust outlooks placed upon that individual. If engineering was furthered to the point where dead cells could be cloned, a parent could clone the dead kid to & # 8220 ; replace & # 8221 ; them. The job with this is that the cloned kid would hold unjust outlooks to be the same as the dead kid, or perchance better. Time distorts perceptual experiences of the yesteryear.

The morality issues that cloning has presented have been addressed by President Clinton. RNS, author of the article Clinton urges prohibition on cloning of worlds, studies that President Clinton, at a White House ceremonial where he accepted the study of the National Bioethics Commission, stated, & # 8220 ; What the statute law will make is to reaffirm our most cherished beliefs about the miracle of human life and the God-given individualism each individual possesses & # 8221 ; ( 583 ) . Clinton is reacting to the statute law that would censor human cloning but allow continued research. This statement was in answer to Scots research workers who had successfully cloned a sheep, doing the cloning of a human more at hand. Angels of President Clinton included Gracie Hsu, an analyst with the Family Research Council. She opposed the thought to let cloning research to go on in order to perchance help the sick. She stated that the panel & # 8217 ; s recommendation to let human embryo research & # 8220 ; is premised on the false premise that human existences less that 14 yearss old are non wholly human, thereby excusing the devastation of infinite Numberss of embryologic kids for the interest of & # 8216 ; research & # 8217 ; & # 8221 ; ( 584 ) . This type of research is really similar to abortion.

President Clinton is non the lone individual to oppose cloning. The Catholic Church and other faiths have decided that cloning is immoral. These faiths extend beyond the Catholic Realm. Many Protestants, including Gilbert Meilaender, Board of Directors Chair of Christian Ethics, and Professor of Theology at Valparaiso University, writer of Religious, Philosophical, and Ethical Perspectives on Cloning: Cloning in Protestant Perspective, believe that cloning is immoral because it takes off sexual reproduction. Meilaender believes that sexual reproduction is good for the relationship of the adult male and the adult females, an besides the relationship between the parents and kid. He noted, & # 8220 ; What Protestants found in the Bible was a normative position: viz. , that the sexual differentiat

ion is ordered toward the creative activity of progeny, and that kids should be conceived within the matrimonial union” ( 2 ) . Meilaender besides believed that when a kid is cloned that the kid is so constructed out of homo will alternatively of God’s will.

Catholics are besides against cloning. Cardinal Bernard F. Law articulates the Catholic position on cloning in an article by Kevin Krajnak. In his article, Cardinal Urges Congress to Ban Human Cloning, Krajnak reports the Pope as saying that Congress & # 8220 ; ? should ordain a meaningful prohibition on human cloning without farther delay. & # 8221 ; The article besides tells of the Cardinal sending each member of Congress an information package explicating how the statements against a federal prohibition on human cloning are misdirecting.

There are many protagonists of cloning. These protagonists believe that cloning is moral for a assortment of grounds. Meilaender efforts to undertake some of these thoughts in his Hagiographas. Many spiritual protagonists turn to Scripture to back up their belief. They note that Adam and Eve were created, and that Jesus was & # 8220 ; begotton, non made in one being with the male parent & # 8221 ; ( Nicene Creed. ) This statement is easy combated with the fact that all was created by God, non merely Adam and Eve. God, in his ageless wisdom, created everything to flawlessness. Persons do non hold that power. Meilaender combats the impression that Jesus being & # 8220 ; begotton non made & # 8221 ; relates to cloning. He states, & # 8220 ; What the linguistic communication of the Nicene Creed wanted to state was that the Son is God merely as the Father is God & # 8221 ; ( 4 ) . If it had been said that God made Jesus it would hold implied an lower status that is non true.

There are many protagonists of cloning. Well Hello, Dolly is an article that supports cloning. Author Kenneth Paul Wesche, where he acts as Dr. Frankenstein, Jr. , explains his grounds. In this article, Wesche raises the statement of God making Adam and Eve in a somewhat different visible radiation. It is noted that Adam and Eve were no less human than Cain and Abel ( or anyone else ) because of the mode in which they were created.

The job that this statement fails to recognize is that God is able to utilize His infinite wisdom, whereas persons are non capable of making this.

Another statement that he presents is that while the DNA stuff may be the same, merely as with indistinguishable twins, that the personality would be different. While this is non proven, it is rather likely. The environment of one & # 8217 ; s community determines the personality much more so than one & # 8217 ; s familial codification. Wesche writes, & # 8220 ; A human ringer would be every bit much a human being as its giver, its personality would be distinguishable even if its kernel and familial makeups were indistinguishable to the giver & # 8217 ; s and therefore it would be possessed of all the value built-in in any personality & # 8221 ; ( 276 ) . Weiche once more failed to recognize that both twins are made by God & # 8217 ; s infinite wisdom, non by human wisdom. Where the cloned being may be alone, it is still manmade, and prone to error by its Godhead.

The thought of making life by controversial agencies is non a new thought. In vitro fertilisation was a major concern to many people fifteen old ages ago. Dr. Kenneth D. Pimple, writer of The Ethical motives of Human Cloning and the Fate of Science in a Democratic Society, views the two methods for making life as rather similar. Dr. Pimple positions that an expostulation that holds true to both of these methods is that they both use unreal methods in a research lab to make life. He notes, nevertheless, that, & # 8220 ; A cardinal difference between these two methods is that cloning an embryo through blastomere separation is every bit chancy as normal sexual reproduction, whereas with bodily cloning, you can hold a better thought of what you are traveling to get- ? & # 8221 ; ( 1 ) . This may be the exact job with cloning. When an person is able to make precisely what they want, outlooks are unreasonably high.

Catharine Cookson, Ph.D. in spiritual surveies from the University of Virginia and writer of Legal Perspectives on Cloning: Of Monsters Unleashed: A Modest Beginning to a Casuistry of Cloning, feels that there needs to be a happy medium insofar as cloning engineering. She writes that the first measure is & # 8220 ; Supplying a system of implemented duty that looks to long term effects and societal goods & # 8221 ; ( 9 ) . While she is against cloning, she is in favour of scientists being free to progress engineering that is less controversial under criterions and bounds. She raises the issue that with all of the adversities which normal worlds are forced to get the better of daily, a ringer would hold the power to get the better of the obstructions that it is faced with.

The issue of cloning is no longer an issue in the imaginativeness ; it has come to life. Just as Victor created the Monster, society may be near to faltering into the same destiny. Scientists are now able to clone sheep and monkeys ; worlds can non be far off. The authorities, along with the President of the United States, sees adequate danger in cloning to put restrictions on it. While the promotion on this subject may melt, its dangers will non. Actions need to be taken before a monster is created.

Cookston, Catharine. & # 8220 ; Legal Perspectives on Cloning: of Monsters Unleashed: A Modest

Get downing to a Casuistry of Cloning. & # 8221 ; Academic Universe. 1998: 10. Lexis- Nexis.

hypertext transfer protocol: //web.lexis-nexis.com/unives ( 3/28/99 ) .

Kilner, John F. & # 8220 ; Stop Cloning Around. & # 8221 ; Christian Today. 28 April 1997: 10-11.

Krajnak, Kevin. & # 8220 ; Cardinal Urges Congress to Ban Human Cloning. & # 8221 ; n. pag. Online.

Internet. hypertext transfer protocol: //www.catholic.org/euthanasia/clone3.html ( 4/5/99 ) .

McLane, Maureen N. & # 8220 ; Literate Species: Populations, & # 8216 ; Humanities, & # 8217 ; and Frankenstein. & # 8221 ;

ELH Winter 1996: 959-968.

Meilaender, Gilbert. & # 8220 ; Religious, Philosophical, and Ethical positions on Cloning:

Cloning in Protestant Perspective. & # 8221 ; Academic Universe. 1998: 10. Lexis- Nexis.

hypertext transfer protocol: //web.lexis-nexis.com/unives ( 3/28/99 ) .

Pimple, Kenneth D. & # 8220 ; Religious, Philosophical, and Ethical positions on Cloning: The

Ethical motives of Human Cloning and The Fate of Science in a Democratic Society. & # 8221 ;

Academic Universe. 1998: 10. Lexis- Nexis. hypertext transfer protocol: //web.lexis-nexis.com/unives ( 3/28/99 ) .

RNS. & # 8220 ; Clinton Urges Ban on Cloning of Himans. & # 8221 ; Christian Century. 18 June 1997:

583-584.

Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein. New York: Norton and Company, 1996.

Wesche, Kenneth Paul. & # 8220 ; Well Hello, Dolly. & # 8221 ; Pro Ecclesia Summer 1997: 273-276.