Opposing Human Cloning: Rifkin, Catholic Church, Right-to-Life Activists - Essay Sample

Introduction

Cloning has elicited mixed reactions from social conservatives, the Catholic Church, and right-to-life activists against the scientific community and progressive forces. In chapter nine, Jeremy Rifkin writes, "Why I Oppose Human Cloning" where he proposes various reasons against the idea of cloning humans either through full birth cloning and therapeutic cloning. There are also numerous signatories who oppose the idea of human cloning. Cloning is attained by a technique known as somatic cell nuclear transfer. The procedure entails presenting the nuclear substance of a human somatic cell into an oocyte whose own nucleus has been eradicated or deactivated (Cohen and Wellman 141). Then, there is stimulation of a new entity to start dividing and growing, producing a cloned human embryo. The paper presents arguments on why human cloning is wrong and should not be supported.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

In human cloning, there are concerns that the market for women's eggs that would be established by this research will result in unethical practices. Critics are also concerned about the intensifying bio-industrialization of life by the medical community and life science firms and are deeply concerned that clonal human embryos have been patented. The opponents argue that human cloning reduces human life and its different parts and procedures to the status of mere research devices, produced products, and utilities. Critics also oppose studies on adult stem cells, which can be acquired from people after birth and may prove to be risky. There is a widespread fear of interfering with human nature and the repercussions of playing god (Cohen and Wellman 142). Criticism of human cloning is usually linked to objections to all studies in human embryos (with the inclusion of the vitro fertilized eggs) due to the concern for the moral bearing of the embryo.

The key ethical objection to cloning-for-study is similar for all embryo-destructive research-it establishes human life solely for the motive of destructing it; utilizing a human embryo just as a means to an end. Critics argue that cloning-to-produce kids, and possibly to the birth mother. Even when the scientists assure that the process may be safe, it may be possibly causing injury to human and non-human life. Cloning is seen as an unsafe technique and could pose a threat to generate a malformed child. Theoretical justifications are claimed to illustrate that the babies generated through cloning are particularly prone to various illnesses with inclusion to those likened to premature aging (Leader 14). Psychological harms are forecasted for individual offspring thus born, including the hate at having their genome structure predetermined by their parents. There is also hate at having been generated as a means of benefitting others.

Many people are against human cloning because it is viewed as trying to reverse the creation theory. Cloning of a human raises essential questions that extend to the very nature of the essence of a human being. From the time the earth was formed, people have believed that the birth of their babies is a gift given by God or a beneficent nature. They tend to rejoice their generativity and celebrate in an act of creation. The fusion between egg and sperm signifies an instance of submission to forces of external nature (Hayry 447). Human cloning means that the notion of 'gift of life' will be abandoned and people will be discussing their shopping experience as they will be purchasing fellow human beings from the scientific laboratories.

Critics of human cloning argue that the procedure goes against human dignity. The cloned humans are likely to resemble identical twins. Moral compass about human dignity is hard to rationalize. However, liberty interests are also weak. The anticipated advantages of reproductive cloning are to resolve sporadic cases of infertility and genome conditions that cannot be cured in secure and approved alternatives such as gamete transfer and prenatal diagnosis. Human cloning cannot be regarded as a priority for female's reproductive health, especially when the international agenda for maternal mortality, violence against women, and sexually transmitted diseases are on the rise. In religious perspectives, opponents argue that the acts of creation should be focused on bringing people together in Christ but not divorcing them into new and diverse classifications.

Nowadays, researchers have increased their efforts to utilize nuclear transfer technology to generate a human being. Taking note that the race to clone animals has faced numerous challenges, it is likely that the cloning of humans may end in more chaotic situations. The technology used in cloning is not yet proven to be viable. In trying to clone animals, failure has been the rule instead of the exception. Besides, the ethical concerns regarding reproductive techniques have not properly been addressed. Critics of human cloning argue that if the process is permitted, it may be easy to generate human beings who might be harmful to the human race. There is also a probability that researchers may be cloning humans for commercial purposes (Strong 45). The opponents argue there are potential implications of stem cell and embryo studies and thus, there is a need for the government to evaluate it in their entirety. The inability to scrutinize the cloning procedures may trap the society into a commercial ring that may be difficult to stop.

Counter-Argument

The supporters of human cloning claim that there is hope to treat by using embryonic stem cells and to generate body parts. This can be attained through a multi-faceted choreography between genetic predispositions and ecological triggers. Medical forces argue that human cloning is likely to generate a less invasive alternative of prevention because it is easy to comprehend the link between genes and environments. Proponents also argue that people deserve the right to choose. If infertile couples intend to pass no genetic features by generating clones of one or both spouses, they should be allowed to exercise their right of choice (Hayry 450). Nevertheless, it is argued that the clone will have the exact same genetic composition as the naturally-born child.

Conclusion

Conclusively, the paper presents arguments opposing human cloning. The process is regarded to surpass moral principles. Opponents of human cloning argue that the procedure decreases human life and may lower the dignity. The studies concerned with cloning are inadequate and have not provided sufficient conclusions. Numerous opponents argue that cloning is aimed at reversing creation theory. The idea that the process is ungodly and is focused on competing with God is deeply engraved in the critics' minds. It is also viewed as unethical to clone human beings. Many people believe that it is crucial to follow the natural way. On the contrary, supporters claim that cloning is likely to generate humans that have superior genetic features. It can also ensure that the clones are free from genetic disorders and possess the intended genetic composition.

Works Cited

Cohen, Andrew I, and Christopher H. Wellman. Contemporary Debates in Applied Ethics.: Chapter Nine: Why I am Opposing Human Cloning by Jeremy Rifkin. 2014. Internet resource.

Hayry, Matti. "Philosophical arguments for and against human reproductive cloning." Bioethics 17.56 (2003): 447-460. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8519.00360

Leader, David P. "Reproductive cloning: an attack on human dignity." Nature 424.6944 (2003): 14. https://doi.org/10.1038/424014c

Strong, Carson. "The ethics of human reproductive cloning." Reproductive BioMedicine Online 10 (2005): 45-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1472-6483(10)62205-5