The Ethics of Cloning

From guest blogger, Leona.

Two days ago, I came across this article on reddit saying that clones of Dolly the sheep aged healthily. They did not show premature age-related problems. The researchers still need to look into the telomere aspects of those clones of a clone, but this at least demonstrated that cloning will not necessarily led to shortened lifespan. Even though these clones might still be prone to having genetic defects and detrimental mutations due to shortened telomere, the fact that their lifespan is largely unaffected can undermine arguments that are similar to Allhoff’s (i.e. cloning is not morally permissible because the clones are expected to have a life that is shorter than the general population and are more likely to have genetic defects).

However, considering the high level of stigma against cloning, I doubt if this recent finding would make cloning more acceptable to many. Besides the Principle Q argument, the slippery slope argument, and the family ethics argument we discussed in class, there are some other interesting arguments against cloning. Two of them are very similar: one argued that cloning is immoral because the clone’s identity is compromised due to having the same genotype as someone who have already lived, thus denied his or her chance to have an open future; the other argued that by having the same genotype as someone else, the clone’s dignity is violated because he or she cannot have a unique genetic identity. One major problem with these two arguments is that they both neglect the roles of nurture, environment, and epigenetic factors. They both made the mistake of genetic essentialism, which assumed genotype is the only determinant factor of one’s identity. In addition, in the case of the second argument we should kill one of the identical twins so the living one can have a unique genetic identity. 

link to the clones of Dolly the sheep: https://www.researchgate.net/blog/post/dolly-the-sheep-clones-age-healthily

* On another note, there's an article that is associated with last week's topic, marriage equality, that I found very interesting. Some queer activists are criticizing the marriage equality movement because marriage has a history of being used as a tool for government control of minorities, and the movement was largely planned out by the gay 1% and reinforced the normative view of relationships. In addition, marriage equality was presented as a way to solve healthcare and immigration status issues for minority groups. The authors argued that these issues should be addressed separately in queer activism. 

http://www.organizingupgrade.com/index.php/modules-menu/beyond-capitalism/item/1002-marriage-will-never-set-us-free

Why Cloning Is Immoral

From guest blogger, Ming,

In Allhoff’s article, he argues that it is morally wrong to clone because of some biological consequences that telomerase shortens from duplication. He also mentions cloning is wrong according to principle Q that the number of people survive is the same either decision you make, but it is morally wrong if you choose the worst one if one group of people would live shorter.

I agree that cloning is morally wrong, but not because of principle Q. First of all, I think that reproduction of human is different from reproduction of plants, because generally human reproduction requires combination of sperm and egg. However, cloning just requires DNA from a cell from scalp tissue of one person and I don’t think cloning follows natural law because it simply extract some DNA and produce a very similar “human-alike” product.

Also, I think cloning is different from having babies without genetic testing for diseases. Some people will have pre-marital medical exam before having babies, but it is not for sure that the genetic disorder will pass to next generation. Thus, it is hard for parents to abort babies or change other mates. However, we are hundred percent sure that cloning would shorten animals’ lifetime. It is immoral to make worst choice if you have other choice available.

Principle Q and Reproduction

From guest blogger, Kara.

Principle Q can be viewed in a consequentialist paradigm with dangerous implications. If the only morally permissible option is the one with the best consequences, then Michael Phelps and Michelle Obama could be morally obligated to have the best superhuman swimmer, amazing armed babies. Assuming one is morally obligated to mate with the best gene option tiptoes the line of eugenics too close for comfort. However, the defense of Q wherein parents are only obligated to produce the best children that they are able to produce solves this issue.

But, what does “that they are able to produce” mean? That’s entirely subjective. Does it mean that the couple is able to produce? What about those looking for a sperm donor? Is one morally obligated to find the fittest sperm donor with the least gene imperfections? Is picking a sperm donor with known gene abnormalities morally impermissible? Where is the line to draw on obligation vs. ability?

Additionally, I think Q can be contrasted with the anti-abortion argument of a Future-Like-Ours. The Future-Like-Ours argument dictates that abortion is wrong because you are unjustly taking away the future of the fetus that would have entailed playing on a swingset, going for a run, eating a donut, and various other pleasures. Is cloning wrong with a Future-Like-Ours mindset because the clone will have significantly less future than a non-clone? Or-is denying the clone a life worse than giving them an opportunity for a future? 

Cloning's Implications for Genetics

From guest blogger, Hannah. 

I think it is interesting to look at the cloning case and examine its ethical implications regarding testing for genetic disorders. When discussing Allhoff's argument against current cloning cases he discovers that due to the shortening of telomerase from replications, creating a clone would be deliberately allowing that clone to live a shorter life and be subject to many of the degenerative diseases that come from old age such as various cancers, Alzheimer's disease, and others. In the case of Dolly the sheep clone, she lived for half the life of an average sheep because her cells were taken from a 7-year old sheep. Therefore, Allhoff believes that cloning is immoral and unjustified right now because of its effects on the clone.

I believe that according to these guidelines, it is immoral for parents to avoid genetic testing for diseases such as Huntington's disease, because if they abstain they did not take any preventative measures to keep that child from the pain that may come from a genetic disease. Although Allhoff disagrees with Principle Q, if you have the choice between having two children (at different times, with different people) you ought to choose the time or partner that will provide the child that is better off, he thinks that reproduction is not only aimed to maximize the child's welfare, but instead to create the best child they are able to. However, there are many tests now along with genetic engineering that would allow parents to craft the best child they are able to and therefore they may be morally required to take such genetic tests in order to create the best child that they can and ensure they will not face extreme hardships such as Huntington's disease. This may be difficult for some parents to face because it is not definite that a child will get these diseases, yet sometimes the chance is as high as 50%. If a couple discovered that their child was at higher risk for a genetic disease, the only moral choice would be to abstain from having a child. However, many parents do not want to make this discovery because they want to raise a child and many would take the risk.

Do you think it is moral for a parent to have a child when they have a risk of a genetic disease? Along those lines, do you think parents need to participate in genetic testing before they are allowed to have a child?