Ahlberg, Jaime, and Harry Brighouse. "An Argument Against Cloning." Canadian Journal Of Philosophy 40.4 (2010): 539-566. Academic Search Complete. Web. 7 Nov. 2013.
Ahlberg and Brighouse argue that the animals and human beings that emerge as a result of cloning are extremely disadvantageous as they are expected to experience particularly short lifespans and vulnerability to disease. While this is the case, they say, cloning is one of the most detrimental inventions of modern technology, as it poses high risks of defect and potential mental complications arising from the impending genetic failures and defects. Ahlberg and Brighouse compare human cloning to animal testing, a concept that has been seriously condemned in the recent past. In point of fact, the arguments of Ahlberg and Brighouse with regard to cloning are valid since the decision to use human beings for purposes of scientific advancement is equal to using the human life for experimentation purposes. Ahlberg and Brighouse criticize the presumption that there is a right to clone. They use such criticism to form a basis for a powerful argument which ultimately leads to their conclusion that prohibiting cloning is better than availing it to humans.
George, Katrina. "What About The Women? Ethical And Policy Aspects Of Egg Supply For Cloning Research." Reproductive Biomedicine Online (Reproductive Healthcare Limited) 15.2 (2007): 127-133. Academic Search Complete. Web. 7 Nov. 2013.
Katrina George addresses the concept of cloning from a feminine perspective. George notes the fact that cloning is receiving a warm welcome in many countries in the modernized world. However, George poses the question: where are the eggs used in cloning supposed to come from? She further argues that the collection of eggs for the purposes of cloning puts the women’s health and social wellbeing at risk. According to George, the use of human eggs in cloning is the same as commercializing the dignity of women. This, in her view, amounts to the objectification of women for a course that is not ethically justifiable. Critically thinking, the arguments of George do make a lot of sense, especially considering that the risk benefit ratio of cloning beats logic. It is also valid to argue that the points put forward by Katrina George are not only condemning cloning, but appealing to the proponents of the idea to consider the fact that women are not lesser beings.
Islam, Sharmin, et al. "Ethics Of Human Cloning: A Comparative Study Of Western Secular And Islamic Bioethics Perspectives." Bangladesh Journal Of Medical Science 11.4 (2012): 258-266. Academic Search Complete. Web. 7 Nov. 2013.
Islam’s article is based on a comparison between the surrogacy associated with the western secular and the bioethical perspectives prominently championed for by the Islamic religion. Islam notes that the Islamic religion is clear on its take regarding cloning. The religion denounces the concept. Islam however notes that the western believes are both for and against the concept of cloning. According to Islam, the connection between the two is not describable in absolute terms, as it is partly for and against the conclusion drawn by Islam is that the western secular beliefs and the Islamic bioethical perspectives seek to attain the same goal, but use different approaches. In my opinion, the arguments of bioethical perspectives as explained by Islam are better than the mixed reactions of western secular.
Morales, Nestor Micheli. "Psychological Aspects Of Human Cloning And Genetic Manipulation: The Identity And Uniqueness Of Human Beings." Reproductive Biomedicine Online (Reproductive Healthcare Limited) 19.S2 (2009): 43-50. Academic Search Complete. Web. 7 Nov. 2013.
Morales thinks the arguments surrounding cloning are the most controversial in the western spectrum, especially when human cloning is looked at as a form of asexual reproduction. Morales argues that despite some proponents declaring the concept inevitable, there exists a fierce ideological clash between social and natural sciences and the productive and medical sciences. According to Morales, social and natural sciences bear a stronger and more reasonable argument, but won’t get a chance to guide the medical and productive sciences because the contemporary world is driven by technology and innovations – factors that do not go hand in hand with the social sciences. Critical evaluation of Morales’ arguments reveals that indeed the social sciences have a strong argument because, typically, the medical and reproductive scientists will be expected to establish the stand behavior that potential parents ought to stick to as a way of giving the cloned young ones an identity. According to Morales, cloning ignores the essence of personality, identity and uniqueness.
Neresini, Federico. "Eve's Sons." New Genetics & Society 26.2 (2007): 221-233. Academic Search Complete. Web. 7 Nov. 2013.
Neresini prominently refers to the cloning works of CLONAID laboratories that supposedly cloned Eve on the 26th day of December 2002.the Raelians, who claimed to have been the ones behind the cloning of Eve, are among the most significant proponents of cloning. The main aim of Neresini’s article is to reveal that which cloning is putting at risk. Neresini explains the various reasons why cloning is as prominent as provoke a serious international debate in social circles, including religious and political circles. Neresini agrees with many other researchers and ethicists that cloning is an abuse to the basis and foundations of human identity. Further the article explains the fact that cloning is one among the factors that eliminate the differences between human beings and animals. Critical analysis of Neresini’s arguments reveals that the articles fronts powerful and valid social thought.
Nordgren, Anders. "Analysis Of An Epigenetic Argument Against Human Reproductive Cloning." Reproductive Biomedicine Online (Reproductive Healthcare Limited) 13.2 (2006): 278-283. Academic Search Complete. Web. 7 Nov. 2013.
Much like Neresini, Nordgren argues that cloning human beings is a serious violation of the human dignity. Nordgren thinks that the reason why there still are proponents of cloning is because the scientific explanations as to why cloning is bad are only available in little detail. The explanations given by scientists are superficial. Nordgren argues that as people become enlightened, there is likelihood that the support for cloning will soon fade away. The article argues that there are still unexplained epigenetic errors that could be detrimental to the ability of a person to resist diseases. Like many other scholars, Nordgren believes that just like animal testing and cloning results in serious defects, so will human cloning. I find the content of this article to be the most unique of all the articles because it prominently uses a scientific approach rather than a moral and ethical view.
Sparrow, Robert. "Cloning, Parenthood, And Genetic Relatedness." Bioethics 20.6 (2006): 308-318. Academic Search Complete. Web. 7 Nov. 2013.
Sparrow’s article explains that there are positive aspects of cloning that are worth noting. The most noteworthy, according to sparrow is the presumption that cloning is a solution to infertility. However, the article points out the reality, that the controversy associated with cloning is rooted in the importance of humans being related to their children. Sparrow question whether or not the cloning parents are more related to the cloned child than the donors. The article is, essentially, a debate between parenthood is more a matter of intention than a matter of genetics. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of sparrow’s argument is the conclusion that if at all intention is a basis for parenthood, adoption and surrogacy are as well legitimate options to cloning. My evaluation of the article reveals that cloning robs the donors of the DNA the right of being related to the children.
Yadav, Sachdev, and Veena Sharma. "Human Cloning: Perspectives, Ethical Issues And Legal Implications." International Journal Of Pharma & Bio Sciences 2.1 (2011): B28-B41. Academic Search Complete. Web. 7 Nov. 2013.
Yadav’s article argues that, despite cloning being one amongst the most astounding developments of modern technology, it is among the most serious offenses to the sanctity of human life. Yadav argues that the act of making identical babies in a laboratory is not any different from the manufacture of products in a factory, and that this amounts to objectification of human beings. Referring to the cloning of dolly, the ship in Europe, Yadav believes that cloning should be meant for the animals that provide materials such as wool, if at all such cloning will yield quality. However, Yadav takes a flexible stance and argues that the idea is justifiable, if and only if, the proponents demonstrate how they will deal with the negative consequences. In my view, such a demonstration is impossible, and what Yadav is trying to put across is the actuality that human cloning should stop.