"Human Cloning? Don't Just Say No," written by Ruth Macklin, a professor of Bioethics, discusses the negative responses people have regarding human cloning. As the title says: "Human Cloning? Don't Just Say No," Macklin believes that cloning deserves a chance to be developed in humans. Though there may not be any substantial benefits to human cloning, nobody has presented a persuasive case that cloning is harmful either.
One of the points mentioned in the essay is about a violation to human dignity. Theologians have said that cloning would be a violation to dignity and that cloned humans would be treated with less respect than other human beings. Macklin contends that clones would share the same rights and dignities as the rest of us. She states that a lawyer-ethicist once said cloning is a violation of the "right to genetic identity" (603). Macklin doubts the existence of this right. She explains that adults should not be cloned without their voluntary consent, however, with such consent; the concept of genetic identity is not violated.
Another issue discussed is that human clones could be used as human farms or organ donors. Unthinkable as it may be, there is a fear that parents may clone their children for "spare parts." Such a theory is ludicrous because parents of twins do not view one child as a spare part should the other break. She reasons that a clone would be looked upon as equally as a twin.
Macklin also mentions cloning being used for eugenics, which studies ways to improve a race or breed through selective mating and other means. She finds such ideas repulsive. She states that there are geniuses already frozen in sperm banks, but that women in general aren't concerned with creating a master race. Therefore, cloning wouldn't be used for "selective breeding."
Macklin gives many examples of cases where human cloning could be considered acceptable. For mothers who cannot have children, families with children who are sick or dying,...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document