Cloning human beings: an assessment of the ethical issues pro and con, Brock tries to take a neutral stance on the subject and give both the positives and negatives of cloning human beings. While doing this he talks about the individual and societal repercussions, what It means to be an Individual and human rights. He takes a strict secular approach to both sides of the argument and doesn’t Involve religious Implications or stances on any points that he mentions.
There are many arguments and positions on both sides of the debate of human loning but Brock only mentions the most pertinent and balances arguments that he could find.
When he begins he starts off defending the concept of cloning humans. In his opening arguments of the pro. It Is defending cloning In the aspect of non-sexual reproduction for those individuals and couples whom can not conceive. His argument is strong when the subject of freedom to reproduce and by the means of reproduction comes into play for those don’t have the option to conceive child with their partner.
If one goes to an adoption agency, they go around and find a child of he characteristics that are suitable to that of the family looking to adopt. why then, shouldn’t the freedom to choose which child to adopt be not limited to a genetic copy of yourself and/or your partner? If that was the case then there would also be a biological connection with said child. From a moral standpoint he himself states that even if a moral right to reproductive freedom protects the use of human cloning, that does not settle the moral issue about human cloning, since there may be other moral rights in conflict with this right.
However it is not said what these other rights in conflict may be, but just that they are present. Moving on from reasons of reproduction he talks about an individual benefit of harvesting organs or tissues from the clone to support that of the host. This however is quickly refuted by the clones rights and that the clones only purpose is to be a means to an end, On the topic of social benefits cloning could recreate famous and talented individuals such as Einstein, Gandhi or Mozart. This also was refuted by Brock by bringing In the argument of nature vs nurture.
These well known individuals may have had the genetic disposition for intelligence, musical arts or moral theory but it is their environment, historical context and their personal xperiences to help form them to who they became. To propose human cloning as a con both on an individual and society level Brock cites Hans Jonas and what he called “a right to Ignorance” and Joel Feinberg and what he called “a right to an open future”. In these arguments they take the defense of the clone and the psychological damage it can do by being a clone of someone in the real world.
How the clones future is already jeopardized by the fact that the host has 1 already made past decisions and laid down ground work for the future that the clone has yet to complete. The belief that the future isn’t already determined and a clean late lay ahead is vital for anyone, clone or not. This is why identical twins do not share or fall victim to the others progress or life. They have had an even and balanced beginning middle and end, even though people may hold them to standards of one another. The individual harms of cloning speak about unacceptable risks to the clone.
The risks here are the lack of research in this area as we try to clone a human. Failure to implant, grow and develop successfully would result in the embryo’s termination. This, even to today’s standards, may or may not be considered life by most people or the law. As far as the social harms Brock speaks of how the worth of an individual would be diminished because another one of” you” could Just be grown, however it wouldn’t be exact because of the experiences and history that made you who you are today.
Cloning may very well be made for financial gain. Selling embryos for them to later become the persons they will be come is a fundamental violation of the equal moral respect and dignity owed to all persons. In conclusion of Dan W. Brock’s stance ofa neutral standpoint of his essay it is my opinion that he fails to be supportive of both sides of the argument. In the material hat he used to support human cloning he made an even more strong point of why that would be good. /beneficial.
It seemed if the benefits of human cloning took a step forward Brock would be there to push it two steps back. When he spoke about the cons to human cloning he supported all sides of it and didn’t refute to why they may be wrong. Reading his essay there was a clear presence of biased opinion in the material. It would of course be difficult to mention all points and sides to the argument, as well as support and refute them but for what Brock did bring up he chose solid points to follow up on.