CloningArguments:The Xerox FallacyReal CloningReal Cloning-- IIReal Cloning-- IIIReal Cloning-- IVScary ScenariosPossible Real ScenarioConclusionsConclusions (cont.)Kass’s ArgumentKass’s False ViewKass’s False View-- IIKass’s “Warm-up”Repugnance Against CloningThree PerspectivesVague ChargesLegitimate ConcernsHow to Regard a Cloned Child?How to Regard a Cloned Child?-- IIOver-ArgumentOver-Argument-- IIValorization of Sexual ReproductionValorization of Sexual Reproduction-- IIKass’s ErrorsCloningWhat Is It Really?Assessing Kass’s ArgumentsArguments:There are very few if any good reasons to wish to clone a human being (as opposed to human cells)There are very few if any good reasons to be strongly opposed to cloning human beingsThe Xerox FallacyCloning a human being is like putting yourself in a Xerox machine and making multiple copiesReal CloningTake DNA from cell of adult humanTransfer DNA into an embryonic cell capable of undifferentiated divisionGrow a multicelled embryoImplant embryo into a female host (“surrogate mother”)Real Cloning-- IIGestate the embryo/fetus for 9 monthsDeliver newborn babyRaise the child to adulthood“Identity” of this person will be determined by complex interplay of genes and environmentReal Cloning-- IIIYour “clone” would be as much like you as your identical twin would be, if your identical twin was 20 years younger than you and raised by different parents in a different householdReal Cloning-- IVYour “clone” would be an independent person with full legal rights as a U.S. citizen, not your possession or “organ farm”Scary ScenariosWanting to raise a child who would be an exact copy of me“Organ farm” for transplantsRaise an army of automatons to fight a future warAll are unrealistic and depend on the Xerox FallacyPossible Real ScenarioParents are carriers for serious genetic diseaseWant to have a child who is genetically linked to one or both of themAny other method of natural or artificial reproduction would lead to a child who is affected by the diseaseConclusionsOnce people come to understand that the Xerox Fallacy is a fallacy, there will be very few cases where one would even consider cloning a human beingOnce we see how limited is the use of real cloning, we need hardly fear a massive movement (even if it is in fact a bad idea)Conclusions (cont.)Outlawing the cloning of humans is overkill, and may impede useful research if it fails to distinguish cloning entire humans from cloning cells and organsKass’s ArgumentKass is a well informed physician and does not believe the Xerox FallacyBut Kass seems to believe a false view of the “conservative” argument against a variety of new reproductive and other technologiesKass’s False ViewThe Ethical High Road:Thoughtful, nuanced analysisof long term subtle consequencesThe Ethical Low Road:Crude, short-sighted excitementabout immediate benefits (“gee whiz”)Kass’s False View-- IIThe “conservative” position (opposing a new technology) will always or almost always represent the Ethical High RoadThe position calling for acceptance of the new technology will almost always represent the Ethical Low RoadKass’s “Warm-up”Associates cloning with general breakdown of traditional religious and family values(Majority of) bioethicists have forgotten deeper issues and become fixated on mere procedural questionsRepugnance Against CloningNot by itself an argumentMay be a window into deeper wisdomHow we evaluate cloning:–Description–Context–ViewpointThree PerspectivesTechnological, liberal, melioristAll are distorted views of the true ethical and social meaning of a new lifeMistake to view birth and the meaning of a person through the lens of reductive science and potent technologyVague ChargesCloning threatens confusion of individuality and identityCloning violates human equality, freedom and dignityIf cloning is not Xeroxing, then exactly how does all this arise?Legitimate ConcernsRaises serious problems of lineage, biological kinship, social relationsRisks in the use of unproven technology on human infants without consentThese tend to argue against any widespread urge to clone humansHow to Regard a Cloned Child?“Gosh, kid, you sure are messed up; you’re the identical twin to one of your parents, and your individuality and identity are seriously in question”“Hi, kid, want to play Frisbee?”How to Regard a Cloned Child?-- IIWe are not helpless in the face of Kass’s serious concernsHow we nurture the child has a great deal to do with whether dire predictions come trueKass’s own approach threatens to insure a bad outcomeOver-ArgumentKass quotes Ramsey on turning “natural” baby-making into a factory-commodity modelRamsey was objecting to IVF in the 1970’sNo evidence that widespread use of IVF has produced any of the dire consequences Ramsey predictedOver-Argument-- IIKass’s argument against cloning could logically be extended to most if not all reproductive technologies used to treat infertilityTo say that all of these are grave threat to human values seems implausibleValorization of Sexual ReproductionTo have a baby the “natural” way is to demonstrate our humanity and our humilityTo clone a human being would be inherently exploitiveValorization of Sexual Reproduction-- IINumerous examples of exploitation of children born “naturally”–Parental pressure to conform to preset expectations–Sexual abuse of children by adultsHow plausible that cloning kids would lead to worse outcomes?Kass’s ErrorsNot the Xerox FallacyVague threats of harmSelf-fulfilling threats of harmOver-argumentValorization of “natural” sexual reproductionRaises some legitimate
View Full Document