He points out that “revulsion” (Kass, 2001) is not the basis of his argument as he points out that “repugnance” (Kass, 2001) of the past is silently accepted in the present. He moreover observes that disgust is not something that is emotional and hence he is not being emotional when he criticizes the cloning of the human embryos but it is a deep thought into the matter makes him talk against the mechanism. He compares cloning with the incest relationships and other unethical activities like disfigurement of corpse or feeding on human flesh. Kass observes that as murder, rape or bestiality cannot be ethically justified, in the same manner reproductive and therapeutic cloning of human embryos stands unjustified on the ground of ethics. Kass (2001), in his composition, says that cloning is resisted not only because it is strange to take up something like this but because he “intuit” that it is not novel and cloning for him is the violation of things that he dearly holds. In the book he criticizes cloning on the grounds of unethical experimentation, threatening the identity of human being and his or her individuality, transforming the essence of procreation into manufacturing. He also argues against it on the ground of despotism that it heralds on the children, thereby becoming the harbinger of parenthood perversion. He makes sure he is not misinterpreted when he is arguing against cloning. He points out that he is against the creation of reproductive cloning and not against the cloning that is used for the research work (Kass, 2001). On ethical grounds Kass argues that the cloning experiment has an adverse and unethical effect on the child to be born. Its not that they would be only affected adversely on the ethical grounds there can serious dangers to their life, as the experiment of cloning has failed mostly among the animals. Incidents of fetal deaths and the deaths of the stillborn infants cannot be avoided in the process of cloning. He also points out that the so called proclaimed successes are actually failure. It has also been revealed very recently that there remains a high chance of disability and deformity among the cloned animals that lives after birth. He justifies his argument by citing examples of clone crows which has heart and lungs problems and cloned mice which develops pathological obesity later on in its life span. It has been also observed that a cloned animal fails in attaining normal development milestones. Though he argues on the ethical grounds of relationships and the associated problem that would arise from cloning he actually argues on a strong scientific and logical terms. His argument against cloning stands justified on the basis of the facts and figures that have been provided by him (Kass, 2001). He also puts forward an argument on the basis of identity and individuality crisis. It will be like a dilemma for the person who has been cloned, as not only will he have concerns about his distinguishing characteristics but also that he will have an identical appearance as his father or mother. This would lead to serious identity crisis. He indicates the adverse effect that a homey case can have if engaged in infra familial cloning. Cloning of the husband and the wife gives birth to a twin parent child relation. Eventually no parent will be competent to take care of the clone of himself or herself as one treats his or her own child. This creates a series of perplexity in the relationship, the way they are perceived. Like if the daughter is the clone of
In "Preventing a Brave New World" Leon Kass concludes that reproductive and therapeutic cloning of human embryos is unethical. What are the exact steps in Kass's argument for this conclusion? What is your assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of this argument?…
The author insists that the main theme is, Brave New World is not the advancement of science as such; it is the advancement of science as it affects individuals. According to the theme of this paper, scientific research is not all about good things or advantages but there are some little disadvantages attached to it.
According to the paper, Kass abrasively states that there is that need due to nature that compel the humanity to decide on the issues not less than whether humanity procreation is to be terminated or it should remain. Additionally, it is whether children are going to be obtained by placing orders rather than begotten.
An example of such advances is in the biomedical project; cloning of human beings. Some people consider this unethical while others do not agree with the act of producing human beings through cloning for therapeutic and reproductive purposes. Kass is against the idea of using human embryos for therapeutic purposes indicating that it is an act of disrespect for human life.
Cloning is performed to fulfill therapeutic objectives and therefore it is categorized as therapeutic cloning and for reproductive purposes under reproductive cloning to generate the replica of human for enhancing the number. Therapeutic cloning is emerging as an active area of research and comprise of cell cloning from the adult for therapeutic purposes.
N Engl J Med. 1974; 291:1296-97). It is this statement that serves as the basis of this paper. It is apparent that Dr. Thomas, years ago, knew that science would come to a point where the impossible is indeed achieved. The question which he asks, but to which there is no hard and fast answer, is, "is it ethical"
The governments use different tactics of manipulation, the Party from "1984" uses torture to subdue those who might oppose it, Utopia of "Brave New World" controls people by showering them with pleasure, which is ultimately more effective because pleasure-based control makes the victim want to feel good by submitting to it.
For example, Alpha embryos are meant to be the leaders and world thinkers of the future world while the other embryo's such as the Gammas and the Betas are also impressive intellectually but are conditioned to be physically weaker than the Alpha's. The main reasoning for this was to ensure that social control would be exerted over the weaker embryos once they reached adulthood.
t the result of a patriarchal government that relieves its citizens of the burdens of all forms of decision-making under the guise of providing for them an existence free of conflict. In the novel, personal expression is criminal and all important choices are made by a state
s a dystopic novel, more potent than George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty Four, since science’s ability to control the human mind did not seem completely unrealistic, though fearsome, at the time. While the novel is an indictment on what we now know as ‘eugenics’, in the