Stem cells are primitive cells capable of forming distinct types of tissue. Due to the remarkable quality, human stem cells are depicted to hold incredible for the development of various therapies to regenerate organs that are damaged as well healing suffering from terrible diseases. Embryonic stem cells are usually derived from human embryos. Their use is relatively controversial since such stem cells are in capacity to be harvested from bone marrow and umbilical cord blood, as well as other adult tissues without harm to the other. `Detailed research regarding adult stem cells is not yet intense and is still a subject of discussion.
According to many therapeutic reasons, adult stem cells are postulated to be more superior to embryonic cells due their comparative stability. Due to the fact that stem cells research comprise the act of destroying of the embryos from whom stem cells are harvested, most federal governments have banned allocation of funds to such process and research. There have been controversial debates concerning the general issue of human cloning (Gellman p.12). The core transpiring question that people use to justify the legality of human cloning is; is human cloning a form of asexual reproduction? Therefore, the people supporting human cloning argue that human cloning has nothing to do with the condition of embryos as well as the wrongness or rightness of destroying them.
President Bush stated that he does not allow funding of research regarding stem cells that were harvested from embryos destroyed in the future. Nevertheless, Bush permitted the funding of research done on existing cell lines that are derived from embryos through which stem cells had been harvested. Some people supported Bush’s stand claiming that the president’s decision is a principled compromise that highlighted and maintained the norm against deliberate embryo destruction. But, on the other hand, accepted funding for research to continue still in the places where the embryos from which the cells had been initially harvested (Le Guin p.10). Similarly, the people that concurred with embryonic research stated that only few useful cell lines existed in order to enable scientists to fulfill what they already asserted was unique and enormous promise of embryonic stem cell research.
In addition, the argument of President Clinton took another notion. Clinton stated that science typically moves faster than our capacity to comprehend its implications. According to Clinton, that is why people have possessed the responsibility to move with care and caution to harness the powerful forces of science and technology. As such he asked for voluntary moratorium concerning the cloning of human beings while waiting the advice from Bioethics Advisory Commission (Lim p.16). In short, Clinton’s statement depicts that a new technology is equal to accepting it as morally permissible. His center of argument focuses on pausing for nationwide debate and comprehension rather than for the issuing of an eventual decision. It is evident that Clinton’s intention focused on harnessing the scientific power. In this respect, Clinton’s statement tends to indicate that the U.S. government is sympathetic to new technological developments. Thus, cloning being a technological development will inevitably become acceptable.
The people that oppose the reproduction of human being through cloning argue that the act is a dehumanizing process that results in destruction and hampering of cultural norms and beliefs as well. More importantly, these people insist that the procedure involves the consideration of children as products of manufacture. Precisely, it compromises their individuality as well as raising knot of severe issues about identity, kinship, and self-image. Therefore, these people war that the resulting procedure will exacerbate the hardship children already have in the case when parents become obsessive.
The move by U.S. federal government to embrace the advancement of new technology in human being stem cloning was altered by the United Nations decision to pass global laws that prohibit human cloning. However, another debate emerged on whether to ban all forms of cloning (Jackson p.18). Different national and international level reports, for example, NBAC, 1997 and NAS, 2002 concluded that the move to carry out human cloning is unethical due to safety issues as well as the likelihood of harm to the people involved. Many individuals, institutions, and lobby groups concur with these conclusions. Virtually, cloning to produce children can serve various purposes. It can give a chance to infertile couples to have genetically related children; allow couples at risk of conceiving children with a genetic disease to evade having an afflicted child. These functions have been supported by appeals to the goods of freedom, well-being, and existence. Therefore, it is evident that the idea of researching more about cloning and human stem cell using human embryos needs critical analysis.
A core weakness of these perceived arguments supporting human cloning to produce children is that they stress on the desires, control of parents freedom and take less attention to the well-being of the cloned child-to-be. As such, cloning-to-produce-children would be against the principles of the ethics of human research. Following the increasing rates of mortality and morbidity in the process of cloning of other mammals, thus it is evident to state that attempts to produce a cloned child would be relatively unethical.
The main point of contention and concern is the safety comprised in ethical principles that guide the wider assessment of cloning. On the other hand, the moral assessment of cloning for biomedical research is far more complicated (Pinker p.11). But it can be also considered that research could result in substantial knowledge about gene action and human embryological development both abnormal and normal. Eventually, the procedure can lead to cures and treatment for several dreaded disabilities and illness. The research is morally contentious since it involves the deliberate production, utilize, and eventually destruction of cloned human embryos.
The ethical and moral case of human cloning for biomedical research is focused on the obligation to relieve human suffering, an obligation that is considered more powerful on biomedical researchers and medical practitioners. For those supporting the biomedical cloning research agree that it might provide uniquely significant ways of possibly treating and investigating several chronic disabilities and debilitating disease and disabilities, relief to millions and providing assistance to several people.
The ethical cloning concerning biomedical research recognizes the possibility though relatively speculative at the moment. According to the perception of many practitioners the medical importance might come from cloning but it has to be double checked to avoid adverse effects. Overall, human cloning and the use of stem cells from human embryos is not regarded ethical as it is not morally supported. Therefore, the issue of using stem cell from human embryos, as well as human cloning, needs to be researched to ascertain its morality.
Work Cited
Gellman. L. “The Moral Meaning of a Pause”: Ethics Committees and the Cloning Debate, 1997.
Jackson S. The Lottery (1948)
Le Guin. U. “The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas” The Wind's Twelve Quarters: Short Stories
Lim, H. A. Multiplicity yours: Cloning, stem cell research, and regenerative medicine. New Jersey: World Scientific, 2006. Print.
Pinker. S. The Moral Instinct, January 13, 2008
