An ethical basis for the rejection or acceptance of cloning in science can be based around several different theories of morality. Interestingly, those supporting a Utilitarian approach, seeking the greatest good for the greatest number, can be found on both sides of the issue. Some advocates of cloning argue that allowing society to benefit from cloned organs, for example, will outweigh the detrimental conse

Their thoughtful analysis (which must be viewed in light of recent developments in cloning, as scientists' experimentation with and information about cloning has increased drastically) specifically discusses the safety of cloning, its possible harms to the family, the individual and to society, and issues of cloning for eugenic "improvements" or co modifying human beings. They add to the debate the argument that cloning may not be dramatically new given other assisted reproductive technologies, and that there may be exceptional cases where cloning is permissible. In their conclusion, the NBAC decides that cloning is unethical but views most of the harms predicted by opponents of cloning as unfounded.

However, some have argued that cloning objectifies humanity or treats life as a means to an end. Kant's ideas of autonomy can then also be used against cloning. In the specific arguments given on both sides of the issue that follow, both of these moral philosophies are apparent. In understanding why some chose to reject or accept the practice of cloning, basic knowledge how cloning is achieved becomes helpful. Some reject cloning because they believe humans are "playing God", others claim that scientists do not "create life" by cloning any more than they would in the practice of in vitro fertilization. According to the American Heritage College Dictionary, cloning is "to reproduce or propagate asexually". This is obviously not the traditional form of human reproduction.

quences of that may result from the abuse of cloning technology by a few scientists. At the same time, those adamantly against cloning argue that denying some individuals their right to a cloned child or organ is necessary to protect society from the negative affects this technology will have on humanity in general. Another common ethical approach to cloning is based on Kant's principles of autonomy and self-determination. Those supporting this theory often believe that in many cases the individual has a right to benefit from cloning if they chose.

In conclusion, my research has led me to believe humans will be cloned in the near future. Worldwide control of human cloning would likely be both hard to implement and impermanent. The ethical dilemma surrounding the issue of cloning then becomes very important. As with most science or technology, cloning is a tool humans can use to bring about either harmful or beneficial ends. In my opinion, cloning in itself is neither moral or immoral, but it

Some topics in this essay:
Madeleine Nash, Cloning February, Advisory Commission, Kass Utilitarian, Waiting List, College Dictionary, Book Dolly, Leon Kass, National Review, Kass Supporters, cloning argue, ban cloning, adult ewe, technology cloning, argue cloning, human cloning, cloning argue cloning, believe humans, environmental genetic, scientists create, life cloning,