cKaitlyn Erin Bartow
Philosophy 243-007
Cloning Essay
October 5,2011

Leon Kass, the author of “ Preventing Brave New World”, an article opposing the continuation of cloning, is wrong to conclude that with the use of human cloning, we will fall down a slippery slope leading to the degradation of our human nature, putting ourselves before our children, bettering our children for the wrong reasons, and ultimately demeaning our own moral worth (Kass, 445). Through the scientific advances that we have made throughout the years, we have made the lives of many people longer and more fulfilling. The advances that Kass is arguing against, has given people children, prolonged the lives of many, and given people the opportunity to do things that they may not be able to do anymore. If there are all of these positive outcomes, how can Kass argue what he does? Before I begin, I feel it necessary to clear up a misunderstood word that may be the reason why people view certain aspects of cloning the way that they do. I will give this particular word a complete unbias by using a scientific definition instead of using my own words. The term that a person should know to truly understand the perspectives being compared is the word: Embryo. According to The Encyclopedia Britannica, an embryo is, “the unborn child until the end of the seventh week following conception; from the eighth week the unborn child is called a fetus”(Encyclopedia Britannica; “embryo.”). The embryos that are being used for cloning are only during the first stage of cell division, and during this stage the embryos are called blastulas. In normal sexual reproduction, a blastula is a clump of undifferentiated cells that are traveling down the fallopian tube in between the stages of conception and the implantation into the uterine wall. This stage lasts between 4 and 6 days on average. The definition is as simple as that. Now, as most of you can see, the habit of some to use the term embryo so loosely may have lead to a misunderstanding of what it really is.

Now that this misinterpretation has been cleared up we can continue on with the first argument. Kass argues in his article, that attempting to clone a human being would be unethical because it will cause harm to the future child, due to the fact that it is still an unperfected procedure in even animals. He may be correct in that statement, but he does not inform people that before we would even consider cloning a human being, we would first make sure that the success rate in animals is to a point where it is almost faultless. Defects that may currently be occurring in animals will be corrected and become seamless before any consideration of human cloning would take place. Even since the infamous “Dolly” was cloned in 1996, there have been advances to correct the defects that she had later in life. He also states in his article that numerous scientists claim if we were to clone a human it would carry immense repercussions such as, malformed and defective children. Just like in the previous statement, he may be truthful, but he is also not bringing up the fact that that is the exact reason cloning is still in its experimental stages and not being used for human reproduction (Longston). It will be many years before we will perfect cloning, but in the meantime we can put our knowledge to good use in other fields of medical science. A remarkable development has taken place in the cloning research. It is the cloning of stem cells to produce usable body parts and tissues. By using an adults’ stem cells from a particular part of the body, for example heart tissue, we have been able to recreate viable heart tissue that can be used to replace damaged tissue. They have even been able to recreate entire organs that are successfully residing in 7 young children, who, 8 years after surgery, have fully and normally functioning, recreated bladders (Park, 1). Following such life saving results with cloning, how can Kass state in the first section of his article that we are not preserving humanity by using these types of therapy? It would be morally unethical for us to sit back and watch as a child is dying because they need an organ, when we have the capability to make another one so that they can live a long and fulfilling life. I understand that his concern would be to clone children to use them for organ harvesting, but why would we take the time to clone a child when we can more easily and efficiently grow the individual organ that the person is in need of. If we were also cloning these children for organ harvesting, would we not consider the time and means that would be involved with that. Who would gestate the child? And by the time that the child would be old enough to harvest the organs from them, wouldn’t the original person that the clone was made from be dead from that particular organ failing? This process would take years. Why would be waste years when we can use adult stem cells to clone an organ that would only take 6 weeks to grow? Morally there would be no qualms with this type of therapeutic cloning because no one would be harmed in the process of it. Kass is wrong, we are preserving humanity by successfully making lives better through this process. If making lives better is not preserving humanity, then I do not know what is.

The last argument that I would like to bring up is Kass’ argument about cloned children having an identity crisis and their parents having high expectations, which in his opinion, will be higher than a parent’s expectations when their child had been conceived through sexual reproduction. Let me just say, that as a child of sexual reproduction, I still experienced those identity issues, and having parents with high expectations. Parents will not create a child through cloning just to have a copy of them selves. Parents will be using cloning to create a child because they are unable to have a child any other way, considering that in vitro fertilization did not work or neither parent’s gametes are viable. Their expectations for that cloned child will be just the same as the expectations that they would have had for a child created through sexual reproduction. Not to mention that that child will not come out looking like an adult. The child would come out looking like an other baby and go through the same stages of growth that any other human being would go through. People also create their own individuality by cutting their hair or wearing particular clothing. The cloned child may have the same exact facial and body features as their parent, but with their own individual style and personality, that “cloned identity crisis” which Kass speaks of will not occur. The arguments that Kass made, seem a little less convincing once you have considered all of these advances that have been made. With the continuation of research, we can make more great strides in cloning and cloning research. As you can see from my argument, we have already made some of those strides in making the lives of present and future human being better. Even though we are far from being ready to clone human beings, I am sure that when we do get to that point we will have figured out that the moral issues that we are now experiencing will have subsided when all of the kinks have been worked out. If we keep cloning in our horizon, we will give all human beings a bright new future.

Bibliography Kass, Leon R. “ Preventing Brave New World.” The New Republic. 21 May 2001. 437-445. Print.

“Embryo.” Encyclopedia Britannica. Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Encyclopedia Britannica, 2011. Web. 05 Oct 2011. <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/185610/embryo>.

Logston, Amy. "The Ethics of Human Cloning." Saint Vincent College, 13 Jan 1999. Web. 5 Oct 2011. <http://facweb.stvincent.edu/academics/religiousstu/writings/logston1.ht ml>.

Park, Alice. "The Science of Growing Body Parts." Time Science. 01 Nov 2007: 1. Web. 5 Oct. 2011. <http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1679115,00.html>.

Word Count:1372