Human Cloning Moral Arguments Essay Sample free essay sample

A. Would the Use of Human Cloning Violate Important Moral Rights? Many of the immediate disapprobations of any possible human cloning following Wilmut’s cloning of an grownup sheep claimed that it would go against moral or human rights. but it was normally non specified exactly. or frequently even at all. what the rights were that would be violated. I shall see two possible campaigners for such a right: a right to hold a alone individuality and a right to ignorance about one’s hereafter or to an â€Å"open hereafter. † The former right is cited by many observers. but I believe even if any such a right exists. it is non violated by human cloning. The latter right has merely been explicitly defended to my cognition by two observers. and in the context of human cloning. merely by Hans Jonas ; it supports a more promising. even if in my position finally unsuccessful. statement that human cloning would go against an of import lesson or human right. Is there a moral or human right to a alone individuality. and if so. would it be violated by human cloning? For human cloning to go against a right to a alone individuality. the relevant sense of individuality would hold to be familial individuality. that. is a right to a alone unrepeated genome. This would be violated by human cloning. but is at that place any such right? It might be thought at that place could non be such a right. because it would be violated in all instances of indistinguishable twins. yet no 1 claims in such instances that the moral or human rights of each of the twins have been violated. Even the usage of birthrate drugs. which increases the chance of holding twins. is non intended to bring forth E-12 twins. However. this consideration is non conclusive ( Kass 1985 ; NABER 1994 ) . It is normally held that merely consider human actions can go against others’ rights. but outcomes that would represent a rights misdemeanor if those results if done by human action are non a rights misdemeanor if those results result from natural causes. For illustration. if Arthur intentionally strikes Barry on the caput so hard as to do his decease. Arthur violates Barry’s right non to be killed. But if lightening work stoppages Cheryl. doing her decease. so we would non state that her right non to be killed has been violated. The instance of twins does non demo at that place could non be a right to a alone familial individuality. What is the sense of individuality that might credibly be each individual has a right to hold unambiguously. which constitutes the particular singularity of each person ( Macklin 1994 ; Chadwick 1982 ) ? Even with the same cistrons. two persons. for illustration homozygous twins. are numerically distinguishable and non indistinguishable. so what is intended must be the assorted belongingss and features that make each person qualitatively alone and different than others. Does holding the same genome as another individual undermine that alone qualitative individuality? Merely in the crudest familial determinism. a familial determinism harmonizing to which an individual’s cistrons wholly and resolutely find everything about the person. all his or her other non-genetic characteristics and belongingss. together with the full history or life that will represent his or her life. But there is no ground whatever to believe in that sort of familial determinism. and I do non believe that anyone does. Even with the same cistrons. as we know from the instances of genetically indistinguishable twins. while there may be many of import similarities in the twins’ psychological and personal features. differences in these develop over clip together with differences in their life histories. personal relationships. and life picks. This is true of indistinguishable twins raised together. and the differences are still greater in the instances of indistinguishable twins raised apart ; sharing an indistinguishable genome does non forestall twins from each developing a distinct and alone personal individuality of their ain. We need non prosecute what the footing or statement in support of a moral or human right to a alone individuality might be— such a right is non found among typical histories and numberings of moral or human rights— because even if we grant that there is such a right. sharing a genome with another person as a consequence of human cloning would non go against it. The thought of the singularity. or alone individuality. of each individual historically predates the development of modern genetic sciences and the cognition that except in the instance of homozygous twins. each person has a alone genome. A alone genome therefore could non be the evidences of this long-standing belief in the alone human individuality of each individual. I turn now to whether human cloning would go against what Hans Jonas called â€Å"a right to ignorance. † or what Joel Feinberg called â€Å"a right to an unfastened future† ( Jonas 1974 ; Feinberg 1980 ) . Jonas argued that human cloning in which there is a significant clip spread between the beginning of the lives of the earlier and later twins is basically different from the coincident beginning of the lives of homozygous twins that occur in nature. Although contemporary twins begin their lives with the same familial heritage. they besides begin their lives or lifes at the same clip. and so in ignorance of what the other who portions the same genome will by his or her picks E-13 brand of his or her life. To whatever extent one’s genome determines one’s future. each begins ignorant of what that finding will be and so remains as free to take a hereafter. to build a peculiar hereafter from among unfastened options. as are persons who do non hold a twin. Ig norance of the consequence of one’s genome on one’s hereafter is necessary for the self-generated. free. and reliable building of a life and ego. A ulterior twin created by human cloning. Jonas argues. knows. or at least believes he or she knows. excessively much about himself or herself. For there is already in the universe another individual. one’s earlier twin. who from the same familial get downing point has made the life picks that are still in the ulterior twin’s hereafter. It will look that one’s life has already been lived and played out by another. that one’s destiny is already determined. and so the ulterior twin will lose the spontaneousness of genuinely making and going his or her ain ego. One will lose the sense of human possibility in freely making one’s ain hereafter. It is oppressive. Jonas claims. for the earlier twin to seek to find another’s destiny in this manner. And even if it is a error to believe the petroleum familial determinism harmonizing to which one’s cistrons find one’s destiny. what is of import for one’s experience of freedom and ab ility to make a life for oneself is whether one thinks one’s hereafter is unfastened and undetermined. and so still to be determined by one’s ain picks. One might seek to construe Jonas’ expostulation so as non to presume either familial determinism. or a belief in it. A later twin might allow that he is non determined to follow in his earlier twin’s footfalls. but that however the earlier twin’s life would ever stalk him. standing as an undue influence on his life. and determining it in ways to which others’ lives are non vulnerable. But the force of the expostulation still seems to rest on a false premise that holding the same genome as his earlier twin unduly restricts his freedom to take a different life than the earlier twin chose. A household environment besides significantly shapes children’s development. But there is no force to the claim of a younger sibling that the being of an older sibling raised in that same household is an undue influence on his freedom to do a life for himself in that environment. Indeed. the younger twin or sibling might profit by being able to larn from the older twin’s or sibling’s errors. In a different context. and without using it to human cloning. Joel Feinberg has argued for a child’s right to an unfastened hereafter. This requires that others raising a kid non near off future possibilities that the kid would otherwise hold. thereby extinguishing a sensible scope of chances from which the kid may take autonomously to build his or her ain life. One manner this right to an unfastened hereafter would be violated is to deny even a basic instruction to a kid. Another manner might be to make him as a ulterior twin. so that he will believe his hereafter has already been set for him by the picks made and the life lived by his earlier twin. A cardinal trouble in measuring the deductions for human cloning of a right either to ignorance or to an unfastened hereafter. is whether the right is violated simply because the ulterior twin may be probably to believe that his hereafter is already determined. even if that belief is clearly false and supported merely by the crud est familial determinism. I believe that if the twin’s hereafter in world remains unfastened and his to freely take. so person moving in a manner that accidentally leads him to believe that his hereafter is closed and determined has non violated his right to ignorance or to an unfastened hereafter. Likewise. say I drive down the twin’s street in my new auto. which is merely like his. I know that when he sees me. he is likely to believe that I have stolen his auto. and hence will abandon his drive programs for the twenty-four hours. I have non violated his belongings right to his auto. even though he may experience the same loss of chance to drive that twenty-four hours as if I had in fact stolen his auto. In each instance. he is mistaken that his unfastened hereafter or auto has been taken from him. and so no right of his has been violated. If we know that the twin will believe that his unfastened hereafter has been taken from him as a consequence of being cloned. even though in world it has non. so we know that cloning will do him psychological hurt. but non that it will go against his right. Therefore. I believe Jonas’ right to ignorance. and our employment of Feinberg’s correspondent right of a kid to an unfastened hereafter. turns out non to be violated by human cloning. though they do indicate to psychological injuries that a ulterior twin may be likely to see and that I will turn to below. The consequence of our consideration of a moral or human right either to a alone individuality or to ignorance and an unfastened hereafter is that neither would be violated by human cloning. Possibly there are other possible rights that would do good the charge that human cloning is a misdemeanor of moral or human rights. but I am diffident what they might be. I turn now to consideration of the injuries that human cloning might bring forth. B. What Individual or Social Harms Might Human Cloning Produce? There are many possible person or societal injuries that have been posited by one or another observer. and I shall merely seek to cover the more plausible and important of them. Largely Individual Harms 1. Human cloning would bring forth psychological hurt and injury in the ulterior twin. This is possibly the most serious single injury that oppositions of human cloning foresee. and we have merely seen that even if human cloning is no misdemeanor of rights. it may however do psychological hurt or injury. No uncertainty cognizing the way in life taken by one’s earlier twin may in many instances have several bad psychological effects ( Callahan 1993 ; LaBar 1984 ; Macklin 1994 ; McCormick 1993 ; Studdard 1978 ; Rainer 1978 ; Verhey 1994 ) . The ulterior twin may experience. even if erroneously. that his or her destiny has already been well laid out. and so hold trouble freely and spontaneously taking duty for and doing his or her ain destiny and life. The ulterior twin’s experience or sense of liberty and freedom may be well diminished. even if in existent fact they are diminished much less than it seems to him or her. Together with this might be a lessened sense of one’s ain singularity and individualism. even if one time once more these are in fact diminished little or non at all by holding an earlier twin with the same genome. If the ulterior twin is the ringer of a peculiarly model person. possibly with some particular capablenesss and achievements. he or she may see inordinate force per unit area to make the really high criterions of ability and achievement of the earlier twin ( Rainer 1978 ) . All of these psychological effects may take a heavy toll on the ulterior twin and be serious loads under which he or she would populate. One observer has besides cited particular psychological injuries to the first. or first few. human ringers from the great promotion that would go to their creative activity ( LaBar 1984 ) . While public involvement in the first ringers would no uncertainty be tremendous. medical confidentiality should protect their individuality. Even if their individuality became public cognition. this would be a impermanent consequence merely on the first few ringers. The experience of Louise Brown. the first kid conceived by IVF. suggests this promotion could be managed to restrict its harmful effects. While psychological injuries of these sorts from human cloning are surely possible. and possibly even likely. they remain at this point merely bad. since we have no experience with human cloning and the creative activity of earlier and later twins. With of course happening indistinguishable twins. while they sometimes struggle to accomplish their ain individualities ( a battle shared by many people without a twin ) . there is typically a really strong emotional bond between the twins. and such twins are. if anything. by and large psychologically stronger and better adjusted than non-twins ( Robertson 1994b ) . Scenarios are even possible in which being a later duplicate confers a psychological benefit. For illustration. holding been intentionally cloned with specific cistrons might do the ulterior twin experience particularly wanted for the sort of individual he or she is. However. if experience with human cloning confirmed that serious and ineluctable psychological injuries typically occurred to the ulterior twin. that would be a serious moral ground to avoid the pattern. In the treatment above of possible psychological injuries to subsequently twins. I have been presuming that one later twin is cloned from an already bing grownup single. Cloning by agencies of embryo splitting. as carried out and reported by Hall and co-workers at George Washington University in 1993. has bounds on the figure of genetically indistinguishable twins that can be cloned ( Hall 1993 ) . Nuclear transportation. nevertheless. has no bounds to the figure of genetically indistinguishable persons who might be clon ed. Intuitively. many of the psychological loads and injuries noted above seem more likely and serious for a ringer who is merely one of many indistinguishable subsequently twins from one original beginning. so that the ringer might run into another indistinguishable twin around every street corner. This chance could be a good ground to put crisp bounds on the figure of twins that could be cloned from any one beginning. There is one statement that has been used by several observers to sabotage the evident significance of possible psychological injuries to a ulterior twin ( Chadwick 1982 ; Robertson 1994b. 1997 ; Macklin 1994 ) . The point derives from a general job. called the non-identity job. posed by the philosopher Derek Parfit and non originally directed to human cloning ( Parfit 1984 ) . Here is the statement. Even if all the psychological loads and force per unit areas from human cloning discussed above could non be avoided for any ulterior twin. they are non injuries to the twin. and so non grounds non to clone the twin. That is because the lone manner for the twin to avoid the injuries is neer to be cloned or to be at all. But no 1 claims that these loads and emphasiss. difficult though they might be. are so bad as to do the twin’s life. all things considered. non deserving living— that is. to be worse than no life at all. So the ulterior twin is non harmed by being given a life with these loads and emphasiss. since the option of neer bing at all is arguably worse— he or she loses a worthwhile life— but surely non better for the twin. And if the ulterior twin is non harmed by holding been created with these ineluctable loads and emphasiss. so how could he or she be wronged by holding been created with them? And if the ulterior twin is non wronged. so why is any incorrect being done by human cloning? This statement has considerable possible import. for if it is sound. it will sabotage the evident moral importance of any bad effect of human cloning to the ulterior twin that is non so serious as to do the twin’s life. all things considered. non deserving life. Parfit originally posed the non-identity job. but he does non accept the above statement as sound. Alternatively. he believes that if one could hold a different kid without these psychological loads ( for illustration. by utilizing a different method of reproduction which did non ensue in a ulterior twin ) . there is as strong a moral ground to make so as there would be non to do similar loads to an already bing kid ; I have defended this place sing the general instance of genetically transmitted disabilities or disablements ( Brock 1995 ) . The theoretical philosophical job is to explicate the moral rule that implies this decision and that besides has acceptable deductions in other instances affecting conveying people into being. such as issues about population policy. The issues are excessively elaborate and complex to prosecute here. and the non-identity job remains controversial and non to the full resolved. Suffice it to state that what is necessary is a rule that permits compar ing of the ulterior twin with these psychological loads and a different individual who could hold been created alternatively by a different method and so without such loads. Choosing to make the ulterior twin with serious psychological loads alternatively of a different individual who would be free of them. without a weighty overruling ground for taking the former. would be morally irresponsible or incorrect. even if making so does non harm or wrong the ulterior twin who could merely be with the loads. At the least. the statement for ignoring the psychological loads to the ulterior twin. because he or she could non be without them. is controversial. and in my position mistaken ; ineluctable psychological loads to later twins are grounds against human cloning. Such psychological injuries. as I shall go on to name them. make remain bad. but they should non be disregarded because of the non-identity job. 2. Human cloning processs would transport unacceptable hazards to the ringer. One version of this expostulation to human cloning concerns the research necessary to hone the process. The other version concerns the ulterior hazards from its usage. Wilmut’s group had 276 failures before their success with Dolly. bespeaking that the process is far from perfected. even with sheep. Further research on the process with animate beings is clearly necessary before it would be ethical to utilize the process on worlds. But even presuming that cloning’s safety and effectivity is established with animate beings. research would necessitate to be done to set up its safety and effectivity for worlds. Could this research be ethically done ( Pollack 1993 ) ? There would be small or no hazard to the giver of the cell karyon to be transferred. and his or her informed consent could and must ever be obtained. There might be greater hazards for the adult female to whom a cloned embryo is transferred. but these should be comparable to those associated with IVF processs. The woman’s informed consent. excessively. could and must be obtained. What of the hazards to the cloned embryo itself? Judging by the experience of Wilmut’s group in their work on cloning a sheep. the principal hazard to the embryos cloned was their failure successfully to engraft. turn. and develop. Comparable hazards to cloned human embryos would seemingly be their decease or devastation long earlier most people or the jurisprudence see them to be individuals with moral or legal protections of life. Furthermore. unreal generative engineerings now in usage. such as IVF. hold a known hazard that some embryos will be destroyed or will non successfully implant and will decease. It is premature to do a confident appraisal of what the hazards to human topics would be of set uping the safety and effectivity of human cloning processs. but there are no ineluctable hazards evident at this clip that would do the necessary research clearly ethically impermissible. Could human cloning processs run into ethical criterions of safety and efficaciousness? Risks to an ovum giver ( if any ) . a nucleus giver. and a adult female who receives the embryo for nidation would probably be ethically acceptable with the informed consent of the involved parties. But what of the hazards to the human ringer if the process in some manner goes incorrect. or unforeseen injuries come to the ringer? For illustration. Harold Varmus. manager of the National Institutes of Health. has raised the concern that a cell many old ages old from which a individual is cloned could hold accumulated familial mutants during its old ages in another grownup that could give the ensuing ringer a sensitivity to malignant neoplastic disease or other diseases of aging ( Weiss 1997 ) . Furthermore. it is impossible to obtain the informed consent of the ringer to his or her ain creative activity. but. of class. no 1 else is able to give informed consent for their creative activity. either. I believe it is excessively shortly to state whether ineluctable hazards to the ringer would do human cloning unethical. At a lower limit. farther research on cloning animate beings. every bit good as research to better specify the possible hazards to worlds. is needed. For the grounds given supra. we should non put aside hazards to the ringer on the evidences that the ringer would non be harmed by them. since its lone option is non to be at all ; I have suggested that is a bad statement. But we should non take a firm stand on a criterion that requires hazards to be lower than those we accept in sexual reproduction. or in other signifiers of aided reproduction. It is non possible now to cognize when. if of all time. human cloning will fulfill an appropriate criterion restricting hazards to the ringer. Largely Social Injuries 3. Human cloning would decrease the worth of persons and diminish regard for human life. Unelaborated claims to this consequence were common in the media after the proclamation of the cloning of Dolly. Ruth Macklin has explored and criticized the claim that human cloning would decrease the value we place on. and our regard for. human life. because it would take to individuals being viewed as replaceable ( Macklin 1994 ) . As argued above. merely in a baffled and untenable impression of human individuality is a person’s individuality determined entirely by his or her cistrons. Alternatively. individuals’ individualities are determined by the interaction of their cistrons over clip with their environments. including the picks the persons make and the of import dealingss they form with other individuals. This means in bend that no person could be to the full replaced by a ulterior ringer possessing the same cistrons. Ordinary people recognize this clearly. For illustration. parents of a 12-year-old kid death of a fatal disease would see it insensitive and farcical if person told them they should non sorrow for their approaching loss because it is possible to replace him by cloning him ; it is their kid who is deceasing. whom they love and value. and that kid and his importance to them could neer be replaced by a cloned subsequently twin. Even if they would besides come to love and value a subsequently twin every bit much as their kid who is deceasing. that would be to love and value that different kid who could neer replace the kid they lost. Ordinary people are typically rather clear about the importance of the dealingss they have to distinct. historically located persons with whom over clip they have shared experiences and their lives. and whose loss to them would hence be unreplac eable. A different version of this concern is that human cloning would ensue in persons’ worth or value seeming diminished because we would now see worlds as able to be manufactured or â€Å"handmade. † This demystification of the creative activity of human life would cut down our grasp and awe of it and of its natural creative activity. It would be a error. nevertheless. to reason that a human being created by human cloning is of less value or is less worthy of regard than one created by sexual reproduction. It is the nature of a being. non how it is created. that is the beginning of its value and makes it worthy of regard. Furthermore. for many people. deriving a scientific apprehension of the extraordinary complexness of human reproduction and development additions. alternatively of lessenings. their awe of the procedure and its merchandise. A more elusive path by which the value we place on each person human life might be diminished could come from the usage of human cloning with the purpose of making a kid with a peculiar genome. either the genome of another person particularly meaningful to those making the cloning or an single with exceeding endowments. abilities. and achievements. The kid might so be valued merely for his or her genome. or at least for his or her genome’s expected phenotypic look. and no longer be recognized as holding the intrinsic equal moral value of all individuals. merely as individuals. For the moral value and esteem due all individuals to be seen as resting merely on the instrumental value of persons. or of individuals’ peculiar qualities. to others would be to basically alter the moral position accorded to individuals. Everyone would lose their moral standing as full and equal members of the moral community. replaced by the different instrumental value each of us has to others. Such a alteration in the equal moral value and worth accorded to individuals should be avoided at all costs. but it is far from clear that such a alteration would take topographic point from allowing human cloning. Parents. for illustration. are rather capable of separating their children’s intrinsic value. merely as single individuals. from their instrumental value based on their peculiar qualities or belongingss. The equal moral value and esteem due all individuals merely as individuals is non incompatible with the different instrumental value of people’s peculiar qualities or belongingss. Einstein and an talentless natural philosophies graduate pupil have immensely different value as scientists. but portion and are entitled to be moral value and regard as individuals. It would be a error and a confusion to blend the two sorts of value and regard. Making a big figure of ringers from one original individual might be more likely to further this error and confusion in th e populace. If so. that would be a farther ground to restrict the figure of ringers that could be made from one person. 4. Human cloning would deviate resources from other more of import societal and medical demands ( LaBar 1984 ; Callahan 1993 ) .As we saw in sing the grounds for. and possible benefits from. human cloning. in merely a limited figure of utilizations would it unambiguously meet of import human demands. There is small uncertainty that in the United States. and surely elsewhere. there are more urgent unmet human demands. both medical or wellness demands and other societal or single demands. This is a ground for non utilizing public financess to back up human cloning. at least if the financess really are redirected to more of import terminals and demands. It is non a ground. nevertheless. either to forbid other private persons or establishments from utilizing their ain resources for research on human cloning or for human cloning itself. or to forbid human cloning or research on human cloning. The other of import point about resource usage is that it is non now clear how expensive human cl oning would finally be. for illustration. in comparing with other agencies of alleviating sterility. The process itself is non scientifically or technologically highly complex and might turn out non to necessitate a important committedness of resources. 5. Human cloning might be used by commercial involvements for fiscal addition. Both oppositions and advocates of human cloning agree that cloned embryos should non be able to be bought and sold. In a scientific discipline fiction frame of head. one can conceive of commercial involvements offering genetically certified and guaranteed embryos for sale. possibly offering a catalogue of different embryos cloned from persons with a assortment of endowments. capacities. and other desirable belongingss. This would be a cardinal misdemeanor of the equal moral regard and self-respect owed to all individuals. handling them alternatively as objects to be differentially valued. bought. and sold in the market place. Even if embryos are non yet individuals at the clip they would be purchased or sold. they would be valued. bought. and sold for the individuals they will go. The moral consensus against any commercial market in embryos. cloned or otherwise. should be enforced by jurisprudence. whateve r public policy finally is created to turn to human cloning. It has been argued that the jurisprudence may already prohibit markets in embryos on evidences that they would go against the 13th amendment forbiding bondage and nonvoluntary servitude ( Turner 1981 ) . 6. Human cloning might be used by authoritiess or other groups for immoral and exploitatory intents. In Brave New World. Aldous Huxley imagined cloning persons who have been engineered with limited abilities and conditioned to make. and to be happy making. the humble work that society needed done ( Huxley 1932 ) . Selection and control in the creative activity of people was exercised non in the involvements of the individuals created. but in the involvements of the society and at the disbursal of the individuals created. Any usage of human cloning for such intents would work the ringers entirely as agencies for the benefit of others. and would go against the equal moral regard and self-respect they are owed as full moral individuals. If human cloning is permitted to travel frontward. it should be with ordinances that would clearly forbid such immoral development. Fiction contains even more distressing and eccentric utilizations of human cloning. such as Mengele’s creative activity of many ringers of Hitler in Ira Levin’s The Boys from Brazil ( 1996 ) . Woody Allen’s scientific discipline fiction cinematic parody Sleeper. in which a dictator’s merely staying portion. his nose. must be destroyed to maintain it from being cloned. and the modern-day scientific discipline fiction movie Blade Runner ( Levin 1976 ) . Nightmare scenarios like Huxley’s or Levin’s may be rather unlikely. but their impact should non be underestimated on public concern with engineerings like human cloning. Regulation of human cloning must guarantee the populace that even such implausible maltreatments will non take topographic point. 7. Human cloning used on a really widespread footing would hold a black consequence on the human cistron pool by cut downing familial diverseness and our capacity to accommodate to new conditions ( Eisenberg 1976 ) .This is non a realistic concern since homo cloning would non be used on a broad plenty graduated table. well replacing sexual reproduction. to hold the feared consequence on the cistron pool. The huge bulk of worlds seem rather satisfied with sexual agencies of reproduction ; if anything. from the point of view of world-wide population. we could make with a spot less enthusiasm for it. Programs of eugenicists like Herman Mueller earlier in the century to infuse 1000s of adult females with the sperm of exceeding work forces. every bit good as the more recent constitution of sperm Bankss of Nobel laureates. have met with small or no public involvement or success ( Adams 1990 ) . Peoples prefer sexual agencies of reproduction. and they prefer to maintain their ain biological ties to their progeny. Mentions Adams. M. . erectile dysfunction. . The Well-Born Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1990. Brock. D. W. . The non-identity job and familial injury. Bioethicss. 9:269-275. 1995. Callahan. D. . Perspective on cloning: A menace to single singularity. Los Angeles Times. November 12. 1993. B7. Chadwick. R. F. . Cloning. Philosophy. 57:201-209. 1982.Eisenberg. L. . The result as cause: Predestination and human cloning. J Med Philos. 1:318- 331. 1976.Feinberg. J. . The child’s right to an unfastened hereafter. in Whose Child? Children’s Rights. Parental Authority. and State Power. W. Aiken. H. LaFollette ( explosive detection systems. ) . Totowa. New jersey: Rowman and Littlefield. 1980. Huxley. A. . Brave New World. London: Chalto and Winders. 1932. Jonas. H. . Philosophical Essaies: From Ancient Creed to Technological Man. Englewood Cliffs. New jersey: Prentice-Hall. 1974.Kass. L. . Toward a More Natural Science. New York: The Free Press. 1985. LaBar. M. . The pros and cons of human cloning. Thought. 57:318-333. 1984. Levin. I. . Boys from Brazil. New York: Random House. 1976. Macklin. R. . Dividing embryos on the slippery incline: Ethical motives and public policy. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal. 4:209-226. 1994.McCormick. R. . Should we clone worlds? . Christian Century. 1148-1149. 1993. — — — . Notes on Moral Theology: 1965 Through 1980. Washington. DC: University Press of America. 1981.NABER ( National Advisory Board on Ethical motives in Reproduction ) . Report on human cloning through embryo splitting: An gold visible radiation. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal. 4:251-282. 1994. Pollack. R. . Beyond cloning. New York Times. Nov. 17. 1993. A27. Rainer. J. D. Commentary. Man and Medicine: The Journal of Values and Ethics in Health Care. 3:115-117. 1978. Turner. P. O. . Love’s labour lost: Legal and ethical deductions in unreal human reproduction. University of Detriot Journal of Urban Law. 58:459-487. 1981. Verhey. A. D. . Cloning: Revisiting an old argument. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal. 4:227-234. 1994. Robertson. J. A. . A Ban on Cloning and Cloning Research Is Unjustified. Testimony before the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. March 1997.Weiss. R. . Cloning all of a sudden has government’s attending. International Herald Tribune. March 7. 1997. 2. 1997.Studdard. A. The lone ringer. Man and Medicine: The Journal of Values and Ethics in Health Care. 3:109-114. 1978.