In England, for example, the House of Lords recently voted to 92 in favor of promoting experiments which will attempt to clone human beings — even though a conglomerate of religious leaders Roman Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, and Sikhs petitioned the politicians to pause and study the ethical issues involved in such an ambitious enterprise. There are those in this country who would take us down the same road. Cloning a human being would involve the following process:
Updated Friday 3rd August Arthur Peacocke explains his views on the religious implications of advancements in cloning science. Now as a matter of fact this is probably faulted right from the start because as we know even identical twins with the same genetic inheritance grow up often with different personalities.
Their developing brains, which are initially determined by their genes, eventually become the product as much of their education, their interaction with people and their environment.
So one has to ask in the first instance why does anybody want to clone a human being? Is it they want to try and make some automaton exactly a copy of themselves? Or of some ideal? What would this ideal be that they want to copy? So I think there are very grave moral doubts about the motivations for cloning in the first place.
When you have children in a normal family or even a non-normal family, people arrive in the world with their genetic inheritance and as they grow up they become individual persons.
One of the things we have to do is to accept people as they are. If you like there is a religious motivation: Is stem cell cloning therapeutic cloning unacceptable?
To produce cells which can be adapted to repair already existing human beings who have some deficiencies in their cells.
It seems to me quite the opposite in fact: Do you consider that scientists are playing God? Well I think scientists on the whole have been pretty careful about not playing God. And in fact have been playing their part in getting legislation to prevent rather rash things being done with their technique.
Some people may want to use scientific knowledge to play God, I get that impression; people who want to have clones of themselves and that kind of thing. Do you think that we may be creating human beings without souls?
I think that that question presumes that human beings have a thing called the soul which is attached to them which is distinct from their body and which clearly contains DNA and genes. After all, you might say do identical twins have the same soul or different souls?
The word soul usually is a noun which ought to be used as an adjective or an adverb referring to capacities of human beings to be, to do. Presumably the human being came to existence with its genes already pre-determined by some cloning technique.
Apart from the worry about where it came from and who its parents were, which is another story, it would have as much capacity to develop its intellectual and spiritual capacities as any anybody else.
Is scientific progress being held back due to the reaction of the media and religious groups? One circle I move in is that of ordained priests and ministers who are themselves scientists and they discuss these questions quite openly and many of them are physiologists and biochemists and they understand the science and they, rather like me, when it has a good outcome and a good intention they often support the application.
But then a lot of scientists who have no religious perceptions are very hesitant about cloning, for reasons about human dignity and personal integrity, which I mentioned earlier. If it was possible to make clones of people who die, do you think that would be right or not?
I think that would be again trying to become some kind of control freak who was trying to produce a particular kind of person.
This is one of the problems with cloning Dolly and these other creatures: Certainly cloning somebody who has just died would mean that their DNA would have accumulated all the deficiencies and all the damage of a lifetime.A peer-reviewed electronic journal published by the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies.
ISSN contents. call for papers. editorial board.
human cloning religious and ethical aspects. A clone would not be a "real human": But a clone would have exactly the same status that an identical twin already schwenkreis.com are derived from a single fertilized ovum. The religion does not entertain the application of this technology citing its beliefs, teachings, morals, values and ethics. This research paper explored the human cloning technology in regard to the perspectives of Islamic religion. Some religious thinkers argue that the use of somatic cell nuclear transfer cloning to create a child would be intrinsically immoral and thus could never be morally justified. Other religious thinkers contend that human cloning to create a child could be morally justified under some circumstances but believe that it should be strictly regulated to prevent abuses.
how to submit to JET. support JET & IEET.
search JET Religious Opposition to Cloning Journal of acceptance of many secular values. Instead, aggressive religious movements are. The ethics of research on human subjects suggest three sorts of problems that would arise in cloning-to-produce-children: (1) problems of safety; (2) a special problem of consent; and (3) problems of exploitation of women and the just distribution of risk.
against cloning humans are religious, and not all religious thinkers oppose the cloning of humans in all circumstances.
Furthermore, many contend that the possibility of cloning humans offers an opportunity for substantive dialogue between scientists and theologians.
Probing the intersections of ethics, science, and theology can offer mutual enrichment. Pg 1 The Ethics of Cloning The Ethics of Human Cloning Sandra Dickey-Smith Comp 1 - Mrs.
Reeves August 25, The Ethics of Cloning pg 2 The Ethics of Cloning Human Cloning is the reproduction that involves one parent. Other Religious Perspectives on Cloning.
Most religions find it difficult to define a clear position on cloning, as religious texts make no mention of such a modern advancement; however, it does give faith leaders much fodder for discussion.
The Jews have been debating the ethics of cloning for decades. ethics hysteria" takes the worst possible ethical and most technically improbable scenario and builds the case for rejecting cloning on that basis. Probably the best single example of such an hysterical presentation of cloning.