|
|
This is only a preview of the paper
Click here to register and get the full text.
Existing members click here to login
|
|
|
In sexual reproduction there is always an element of chance, as random genetic variations of two people combine. The desire to reproduce a certain genetic specimen is a poor reason to bring a child into the world, and may result in psychological pressure on the child to live up to the legacy of the gene donor. As Philadelphia's Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua put it, "The child is produced and wanted not for his or her own sake, but because he or she will carry traits that someone else values." Or, in the words of Rev. Eileen W. Lindner, head of the National Council of Churches: "Talk about having 'no graven images.' Einstein, Jesse Owens and Yo-Yo Ma all rolled into one? Where you have a super-human, that is a kind of quintessential idolatry." (4) However, there is typically an element of premeditation, too, as people, consciously or subconsciously, choose their mates to influence the genetic makeup of their offspring. Cloning may be seen merely as a more extreme form of control over one's offspring's genes. Furthermore, cloned children may not necessarily feel more pressured then sexually conceived children, who also feel pressure to meet their parents' standards. [Cloning] technologies, by contrast to cross breeding, restrict genetic drift: They attempt to stabilize an existing genus by reducing alien interference. Those who want to preserve the pristine integrity of Homo sapiens sapiens should, logically, advocate cloning. Those who are horrified by miscegenation should also, logically, advocate isosexuality. After all, mating with members of your own sex is the ultimate form of endogamy. (1) It would be premature and unnecessarily conservative to ban cloning technology just because social problems could erupt.
Approximate Word count = 1047
Approximate Pages = 4.2
(250 words per page double spaced)
|
|
|
|
|
|