Controversial Issues: Cloning
In the article that I chose there are two opposing opinions on the issue of "Should Human Cloning Ever Be Permitted?" John A. Robertson is an attorney who argues that there are many potential benefits of cloning and that a ban on privately funded cloning research is unjust and that this type of research should only be regulated. On the other side of this issue Attorney and medical philosopher George J. Annas argues that cloning devalues people by stripping them of their uniqueness and that a ban should be enforced on it. Both of them express valid points and I will compare the articles to gain a better understanding of all of their opinions.
John A. Robertson's article "Human Cloning and the Challenge of Regulation" gives three important reasons on why there should not be a ban on Human Cloning, but it should be regulated. Couples who are infertile might choose to clone one of the partners instead of using the sperm, eggs, or embryo's from anonymous donors. For example in vitro fertilization, doctors attempt to start with many ova, fertilize each with sperm and implant all of them in the woman's womb in the hope that one will result in pregnancy. (Robertson) But some women can only supply a single egg. Through the use of embryo cloning, that egg might be divisible into, say 8 zygotes for implanting. The chance of those women becoming pregnant would be much greater. (Kassirer) Secondly, it would benefit a couple at high risk of having offspring with a genetic disease choose whether to risk the birth of an affected child. (Robertson) Parents who are known to be at risk of passing a genetic defect to a child could make use of cloning. A fertilized ovum could be cloned, and the duplicate tested for the disease or disorder. If the clone were free of genetic defects, then the other clone would be as well. Then this could be implanted in the woman and allowed to mature to term. (Heyd) Thirdly, it would be used to obtain tissue or...