Ethics of human cloning has become an outstanding issue in the past few years. Even though both sides agree that cloning technology is one of the greatest achievements, they still have a big gap in accepting its ethnicity. On one hand, a number of people have extremely appreciated human cloning because this might be the last chance or even the only way for them to preserve the priceless images from their lovers. On the other hand, many others have claimed that cloning human beings would seriously violate human dignity in terms of laboratory or purposes.
However, in the final analysis, I believe human cloning is ethical in some meanings that the ethic should benefit humankind, especially unfortunate ones, rather than to comply strictly with conservative perceptions. At first, human cloning is obviously ethical when helping hopeless victims to overcome the pangs or, at least, giving them a motivation to keep living, or even making them happier. Ethics or not ethics usually depends on how to approach the matter. In some situation, the mostly right things are inappropriate.
For instance, a couple that had been married for three years was in a terrible car accident; the husband old be a vegetable the rest of his life and obviously could not take part in the reproduction of children. For the wife, the only way that she will ever have children is human cloning. Is it fair or ethical if she must live lonely the rest of her life without a son or daughter from her love husbands, or if she only gets kids in accepted ways with a strange man? Moreover, Smith says “A child has right to be better than its parents. In another word, human cloning technology can give our children better lives such as to live longer with resistance to cancer, heart disease, any familial diseases, and all the other robbers. In contrast, some skeptical people doubt that cloning would harm society because fewer people get married. In addition, they also criticize that children may not receive well cares if raised up by a single parent or parents of a single sex, which consequently results in social evils that affect other families. However, this is an overstatement because most people still want to be in love and to share their lives together.
Cloning IS not the most choice for everybody but the last choice for unlucky people to recover their losses. Next, It is not fair if human cloning is considered unethically just because of “playing God”. Kindly, the criticism is easily broken down because the top goal of ethics is to aim at humankind’s happiness. This basic right of happiness and the core value of morality are unchanged through the time, while the standards for ethics made by concepts, values and rules from culture, tradition and religious teachings are always in updating progress.
Therefore, a definition was wrong in the past would be the true in the future. The shape of the earth is a typical example. Thanks for development of sciences, everyone knows the earth is round while we used to believed that it were flat. Likewise, ethics of human cloning might have been transforming. Anderson argued: “It seems doubtful that when people criticize human cloning on the grounds that we’d be “playing God” that what is really bothering them is that it is “unnatural” because a) there’s nothing new about that and b) very few people would, if pressed, advocate that we should live totally “natural” lives. Andersen’s opinion is right because it is not righteous when we have not eared playing God, the invisible, but discriminated single moms or poor couples. For childless couples or widows, how they can have their own kids without help or interference of cloning technologies. Blessedly, a child from their stem cells is not a lifeless clone but the worthiest gift sending from the god via the scientists. Moreover, the God always wants the human race living better, and they should be happy as soon as possible in this life rather than waiting for the next life in the heaven.
Smith agreed that people deserve a fix when men are made to feel like they are not “real men” and women are made o feel as if they are useless barren vessels, and, as his claim, human cloning probably changes the world for infertile couples almost overnight. Last, human cloning is ethical in terms that creating lives is somehow better than killing them. Definitely, it is not right if accepting the worst is more ethical than rejecting the better. Namely, procuring abortion was legal since 1 973 in the United States and in most places around the world.
It means that, by 1973, abortion had been banned. In addition, even though the government has a legitimate interest in protecting the life of an embryo or fetus, abortion s still proceed. To explain for killing actions, Head cited “Embryos and fetus do not have rights themselves unless and until it can be determined that they are human persons”. He also raised two reasons to support the legalization, including “women have the right to make decisions about their own reproductive systems, and they have the power to exercise that right regardless of government policy. If so, whether others can have children, no matter how they are created? Anyway, abortion has been in fact homicide, and we are accepting the worst and banding the better. These arguments how that ethical standards are vague, and the right and wrong positions are easily switched according to our values that sometimes can be bent in purpose. Therefore, ethics itself are undefined clearly leading to skepticism about current criticisms about cloning ethics.
Beside the above usefulness, there are fears about harmfulness of human cloning toward human dignity. First, many people claimed that human clones would be treated as lab-rats. This is really a tremendous disaster if happened but, luckily, we most are humanitarian and always see appearances of clones as our beloved images hat will warm up our souls and making our lives worth living. Additionally, Anderson “disagrees on the principle that any clone created in a lab would not fit in society”.
He stated the reason that “society as a whole is scared of what is different”, so a clone will be accepted if likely same to the normal. A Frankincense-like is a good sample about social reaction. However, that is just an accident due to imperfection of cloning technology during preliminary testing periods, and better clones may receive better treatments. Second, clones might be seen as second-class citizens. Anderson questioned that if a parent had a copy of the lost child, would they love the cloning child as the lost.
In reality, there are some things unique and irreplaceable. However, the copied child ethically could be seen as compensation for the loss and might receive more than the original because love is generous and unlimited. Additionally, people psychologically adore a lost thing more than usual if they find it. Moreover, negative social-matters like race discrimination, rich-poor gap always exist, so the conception of classified citizens is not new and serious. Even, it is hard to build a framework for comparison between classes; I. E. Which class is preferred between the “second-class” of elite citizens and the “first-class” of lower class, or between the “second-class” of American and the “first-class” of starved African? Shortly, comparing or discriminating between human is indefinitely ethical. Last, some conservative criticized that productively cloning would be a danger for society and the world. If aggressive nations or bad organizations got the technology, they would create armies of psychopathic killers who would eat, breathe and live to kill without second.
Likewise, they could also clone both superior men as scientists for researching lethal weapons, and stupid men with low Intelligence Quotation (IQ) as cheap labors for factories. While agree with Anderson that “creating a clone for a specific purpose is different and more objectionable because we would be bringing a human being into existence just for that purpose, rather than attempting to use an already existing human being”, I still believed that our societies are under democracy, which respects civil expectations of peace, wealth, and prosperity.
Further, human cloning technology is necessary for meeting future requirements. What will happen if next generations under evolved environments have less chance to get pregnant or if there is extreme imbalance in gender of population? We have to adapt to changes of environments, such as natural and social environments. Thus, even though there are some ethical criticisms about human cloning I totally believe that the cloning is one of the greatest historic achievements performing the greatest jobs to benefit human kinds, and bring us enviable ever happiness.
Personally, cloning technology can revolutionize the world. In other words, the technology can be used for ultimately serving people. The thing is how we approach and use the cloning technology in moral perceptions. If we can control it lawfully, human cloning technology will be the greatest mean to create more pleasant and successes for the whole humankind. While waiting for the last version of cloning technology, we can minimize the catastrophes of cloning, which is helpful for neutralizing ethical criticism aimed at human cloning.