Post by Derek Nahigyan on Jul 21, 2009 0:54:42 GMT -5
Stem Cell Research: While stem cell research can repair damaged or malfunctioning humans and can cause a great deal of controversy over donating fetuses and the abortion debate, we will primarily discuss cloning and if it is absurd or the perfection of mankind.
Leon Kass begins his article with gay and lesbian marriage, out of wedlock children, and a society that doesn’t frown or forbid divorce, he states that the clone is the “ideal emblem: the ultimate single-parent child.” (407). While Kass is against the cloning and believes we ought to discontinue further research, he provides ample examples, both good and bad, for why cloning is a debate at large today. While we cannot replicate everything perfectly in one try—there were a great deal of failures before Dolly was born created—with technology rapidly evolving, very soon the process will be infallible, raising the question: is it morally right? We can already clone organs with relative success, and John A. Robertson mentions, on page 422, having an identical child in cold storage to provide organs, bone marrow, blood, or whatever else the child needs to survive without begging for donors or hunting for the right blood type. Kass opens by saying that it is not like Xeroxing, there is no fear that there will be mass production of human beings but what if athletes and celebrities willingly sell their genes like they would autographs and uniforms? Why not “upgrade the gene pool or replicate superior types?” (409). Kass argues that incest would rise and slowly deform our race or worse, if we don’t want short people anymore, why not get rid of that gene altogether? While Kass agrees that it is important research, we should stop now before going too far.
Matt Ridley argues the opposite case. In the past, we were already trying to control our population’s outcome, since “Winston Churchill lobbied for compulsory sterilization of the mentally handicapped.” (418). Likewise, “we abort fetuses with down syndrome or inherited disorders,” and many “Jews who carry Tay-Sachs mutation can avoid marrying through blood-testing,” and thusly securing that future generations don’t have to suffer that kind of travesty. (418). What’s more is that these changes are not damaging but beneficial. Tampering genetics, as Ridley views it, is the next step for mankind—perfecting mankind. If there is a certain disease that is constant in your family, you can have the gene altered. With this kind of genetic engineering, people could find the cure to cancer by eliminating the genes responsible for it. However, Ridley also mentions that if you wanted a child to be extra tall, or extra talented at sports—more athletic—that would also be a choice. He immediately refutes the incest claim by taking the stance of a father who wouldn’t change a thing about his kids. People want their own kids, not someone else’s. Also, despite the growth in our society’s tolerance level, it’s true that a child who is born gay can lead a life of misery and negligence, as well as abuse, from the parent. Ridley comments that you could—it is possible—to find the gene responsible and change it. The same is true for homosexual couples that want a homosexual baby with their own DNA. Cass R. Sunstein says, “cloning produces life whereas abortion destroys it,” and while the abortion debate is ongoing, it is far more accepted than cloning. (427). Most mothers abort for their own convenience. Most of the time, that convenience is because of age (not ready), occupation (can’t afford it), or they simply don’t want children, but some people abort because it won’t be the child they want, as Ridley stated, people already abort fetuses with Down syndrome. Why should the government violate the 14th amendment if a family chooses to genetically alter its baby to give it a more fulfilling life? If then, the child is born and has some sort of disorder however, the statement becomes why didn’t you do anything about it? Matt Ridley stands firm that eliminating disorders and choosing what aspects you want would in fact, increase diversity since not everyone wants the same thing.
Stem cell research raises many questions. Should a child be allowed to sue his parents for making him the way they did? Would there be psychological effects on a person who has the exact same genes as someone already living? Would there be a sibling rivalry with that person as to who can do better? Is it the genes or the environment that truly defines a person’s personality? On page 430, Sunstein mentions that there is “some evidence of psychological difficulty in human twins.” While twins may not be exactly the same, how would a cloned person feel being raised by themselves only older? What kind of psychological effects would incur after realizing that your face was becoming the face of your father?
While a bunch of athletic people to replace those who are obese may seem logical, who’s to say we would not all want the same things? Should genetic engineering be allowed but only to deter cancer and disorders, or should cosmetic enhancements be allowed as well? What if a murderer clones himself without anyone knowing and the clone is arrested and thrown in jail because of matching blood, while the killer continues uninterrupted? Our legal system would suffer drastically if it could not pinpoint which person it was. It is a confusing topic, but not far off in a distant future.
Leon Kass begins his article with gay and lesbian marriage, out of wedlock children, and a society that doesn’t frown or forbid divorce, he states that the clone is the “ideal emblem: the ultimate single-parent child.” (407). While Kass is against the cloning and believes we ought to discontinue further research, he provides ample examples, both good and bad, for why cloning is a debate at large today. While we cannot replicate everything perfectly in one try—there were a great deal of failures before Dolly was born created—with technology rapidly evolving, very soon the process will be infallible, raising the question: is it morally right? We can already clone organs with relative success, and John A. Robertson mentions, on page 422, having an identical child in cold storage to provide organs, bone marrow, blood, or whatever else the child needs to survive without begging for donors or hunting for the right blood type. Kass opens by saying that it is not like Xeroxing, there is no fear that there will be mass production of human beings but what if athletes and celebrities willingly sell their genes like they would autographs and uniforms? Why not “upgrade the gene pool or replicate superior types?” (409). Kass argues that incest would rise and slowly deform our race or worse, if we don’t want short people anymore, why not get rid of that gene altogether? While Kass agrees that it is important research, we should stop now before going too far.
Matt Ridley argues the opposite case. In the past, we were already trying to control our population’s outcome, since “Winston Churchill lobbied for compulsory sterilization of the mentally handicapped.” (418). Likewise, “we abort fetuses with down syndrome or inherited disorders,” and many “Jews who carry Tay-Sachs mutation can avoid marrying through blood-testing,” and thusly securing that future generations don’t have to suffer that kind of travesty. (418). What’s more is that these changes are not damaging but beneficial. Tampering genetics, as Ridley views it, is the next step for mankind—perfecting mankind. If there is a certain disease that is constant in your family, you can have the gene altered. With this kind of genetic engineering, people could find the cure to cancer by eliminating the genes responsible for it. However, Ridley also mentions that if you wanted a child to be extra tall, or extra talented at sports—more athletic—that would also be a choice. He immediately refutes the incest claim by taking the stance of a father who wouldn’t change a thing about his kids. People want their own kids, not someone else’s. Also, despite the growth in our society’s tolerance level, it’s true that a child who is born gay can lead a life of misery and negligence, as well as abuse, from the parent. Ridley comments that you could—it is possible—to find the gene responsible and change it. The same is true for homosexual couples that want a homosexual baby with their own DNA. Cass R. Sunstein says, “cloning produces life whereas abortion destroys it,” and while the abortion debate is ongoing, it is far more accepted than cloning. (427). Most mothers abort for their own convenience. Most of the time, that convenience is because of age (not ready), occupation (can’t afford it), or they simply don’t want children, but some people abort because it won’t be the child they want, as Ridley stated, people already abort fetuses with Down syndrome. Why should the government violate the 14th amendment if a family chooses to genetically alter its baby to give it a more fulfilling life? If then, the child is born and has some sort of disorder however, the statement becomes why didn’t you do anything about it? Matt Ridley stands firm that eliminating disorders and choosing what aspects you want would in fact, increase diversity since not everyone wants the same thing.
Stem cell research raises many questions. Should a child be allowed to sue his parents for making him the way they did? Would there be psychological effects on a person who has the exact same genes as someone already living? Would there be a sibling rivalry with that person as to who can do better? Is it the genes or the environment that truly defines a person’s personality? On page 430, Sunstein mentions that there is “some evidence of psychological difficulty in human twins.” While twins may not be exactly the same, how would a cloned person feel being raised by themselves only older? What kind of psychological effects would incur after realizing that your face was becoming the face of your father?
While a bunch of athletic people to replace those who are obese may seem logical, who’s to say we would not all want the same things? Should genetic engineering be allowed but only to deter cancer and disorders, or should cosmetic enhancements be allowed as well? What if a murderer clones himself without anyone knowing and the clone is arrested and thrown in jail because of matching blood, while the killer continues uninterrupted? Our legal system would suffer drastically if it could not pinpoint which person it was. It is a confusing topic, but not far off in a distant future.
