Within human cloning lies great potential for change, in orders of magnitude greater than anything else discussed so far in this class. By examining the arguments from this week’s readings, one is able to explore a wide variety of topics that extend far beyond what is apparent upon first glance. Before reading these articles, I felt any argument on human cloning would be relatively simple, and comparable to the other bioethical dilemmas we had discussed in class. After reading this week’s articles, I found by exploring the ethical, moral, and technological ideas behind human cloning I was able to gain insight into a vast array of issues. None more so than science’s role in society, and under what framework such dynamic and complex issues such as human cloning and should be examined.
Those ideas are explored in one way or another in each of the readings assigned this week, but “Human Cloning and Human Dignity” takes the most comprehensive view at the subject. This book was written by a committee appointed to the task of advising the President of United States George W. Bush on potential regulatory actions that may need to be taken against human cloning, as well as to give the American public a comprehensive idea of the moral and ethical dilemmas surrounding human cloning. What is unique about this piece in comparison to others we have read is that it does not have a single author, and rarely does the committee speak as one. Rather, they speak as a myriad of voices coming from a number of disciplines who share different perspectives on the subject of human cloning. Each person on the committee casts a vote towards different solutions to the variety of problems brought up in the book. The two main issues explored by the book are the use of human cloning for reproduction, and for biomedical research. The arguments for both were extensive and well thought out, but the topic shared by all of three articles is that of human-cloning-for-reproduction and therefore will be the one explored here.
The conclusion of the president’s committee was to place a lifetime ban on human cloning for reproduction for a variety of reasons. The main one being that by changing such a fundamental part of human reproduction numerous untold consequences could occur that our present systems of moral reasoning were not yet capable of handling. The magnitude to which it could change the view of what a family or even a human looked like, coupled with its limited use, were at the forefront of the committee’s argument against using human cloning for such purposes. The committee took such a staunch view of using cloning for reproduction that it did not even attempt to fully reconcile the discrepancies it saw using human cloning for reproduction may produce. Rather, it states that “lacking such understanding no one should take action so drastic as the cloning of a human child.” The committee felt that the actions of a very few could thrust humanity into “uncharted waters without a map or compass.” As such, they advised that it was the United States’s imperative to put a lifetime ban on all human cloning for reproductive purposes, regardless of any circumstances.
Both “Cloning People: A Jewish Law Analysis of the Issues” and “Negotiating Life: The Regulation of Human Cloning and Embryonic Stem Cell Research” take far more limited views. Rather than attempting to analyze the impact human cloning for reproduction may have on all of humanity, they sought to view it through the moral reasoning of Jewish family law. From this vantage point the issue looked quite different than the way it did in “Human Cloning and Human Dignity” for a variety of reasons. The goal of the papers was not to look at all the different avenues which may arise from the journey and completion of the project of human cloning, but rather to only answer the question of whether human cloning for reproduction was morally permissible for Jewish communities. In the case of “Cloning People: A Jewish Law Analysis of the Issues” by Micahel Broyde, this new point of view provided for an interesting conclusion, and one that seemed a slightly “non-chalant” given the scope of the issue at hand. Rather than spelling doom for all of humanity, it concluded that in a few limited cases, cloning for the purpose of reproduction would provide a means to achieving a moral good by allowing men to achieve their mitzvah, the moral prerogative set by God in Genesis for all Jewish men to “be fruitful and increase”. The worst-case scenario spelled out by “Cloning People: A Jewish Law Analysis of the Issues” were quite different than “Human Cloning and Human Dignity” and stated simply that in the instances where a woman wished to clone herself, this act would be morally neutral, as Jewish woman are not subject to the same moral obligations to reproduce as Jewish men are. However, I feel as though the view taken by Michael Broyde was too narrow to capture the full impact taking such a step would actually have. This can be seen clearly in his conclusion where he compares the use of human cloning for reproductive purposes as similar to IVF or surrogacy saying, “cloning is a form of assisted reproduction—no different from artificial insemination or surrogate motherhood—which, when technologically feasible, should be made available to those individuals in need of assisted reproduction.” While that may be true within the context of Jewish family law, it seems more consideration is need, as the issue at hand would be much less complex and most of the fundamental dilemmas presented by this new technology would have already been solved if that were the case.
“Negotiating Life: The Regulation of Human Cloning and Embryonic Stem Cell Research” seemed to mend the two other works together well. While I read “Human Cloning and Human Dignity” many of the arguments came off as hyperbolic and, in some cases, it felt as though the committee lacked faith in humanities moral capabilities. However, Barbara Prainsack’s work put any idea of hyperbole to rest with the first scenario she put forward. She recalls a time when a Jewish woman contacted an Israeli bioethicist wishing to use human cloning to avoid the many conflicts which may occur when reproducing within the complex framework that is Jewish family law. While the women’s only desire was to have a child within the right moral bounds set up by her religion, the reasoning put forth by and her Rabbi as to why human cloning would not be morally objective were shaky, and it is by examining small interactions such as these that one can more clearly see how the use of such a technology can be more than just morally objectionable. It highlights how such technologies can begin to erode and delegitimize the moral systems of the modern world. By cloning herself this woman would be able to circumvent the complex rules set up by her religion, but that begs the question of why the rules were put into place to begin with. These rules were not written to prohibit this woman from having a baby, but rather to guide her to reproducing through a means that is morally acceptable. How then would reproducing in a manner foreign to anything Jewish family law was set up to interpret be considered morally good or bad? By avoiding such halachic conflicts, is there still leave room for the child to exist within the context of Jewish family law?
It is undeniable that human cloning has the possibility to change the entire face of humanity as we currently know it. However, whether this represents a change for better or for worse may not reside in how the changes occur, but rather how one views the changes which do occur. For these reasons I am unsure if any one kind of moral authority is equipped to address everything that human cloning encompasses and if biologist are set on proceeding with human cloning experiments, which it seems they very well are, it will take caution, humility and collaboration to ensure that such a project is completed in a manner that does not inoperably change the face of humanity to something unrecognizable to all human societies.
Brantley,
I liked how you started your blog post by stating how you felt before and after reading the articles for this week. I think you have some run on sentences, specifically the second sentence in your second paragraph. I think this is a good start to a blog post, where you summarized each piece, and gave insight into specific aspects. However, I believe you could go more in depth with your analysis of the readings.
I liked how you mentioned that “Human Cloning and Human Dignity” is a compilation of a committee rather than one voice and one opinion. This understanding will engage the reader into thinking that multiple people agreed on these topics rather than one person’s own thoughts and beliefs. I thought it was interesting how in “Cloning People: A Jewish Law Analysis of the Issues” women are set to different reproductive standards than men are. Men are expected to reproduce at almost any cost, while women have a different moral standard and more limitations than men do.
Finally, I don’t agree with Broyde’s point that cloning is the same as IVF and surrogacy. These are biologically very different methods of ART, and therefore carry different implications morally. As you said, these dilemmas would have been solved if cloning was held in the same regard as surrogacy and IVF.
Hey Brantley,
I think you did a good job summarizing the article. I like how you compared all the articles based on level of complexity. On the other hand, I do think the articles were more complex than you are giving credit too. In addition, I agree with you comments pertaining to Cloning people: A Jewish Law Analysis of the Issues. The author states “the instances where a woman wished to clone herself, this act would be morally neutral, as Jewish woman are not subject to the same moral obligations to reproduce as Jewish men are.” I agree this is a simplistic view and does not encompass the entire picture. The author should make this more clear. My only problems with you response is that I feel some of your comments are based on subjective claims. I think the use of quotes to back them up would be helpful.
You also stated, “What is unique about this piece in comparison to others we have read is that it does not have a single author, and rarely does the committee speak as one.” Maybe I didn’t understand this comment, but I think this is a false statement.
Hi Brantley,
I enjoyed reading your post this week. I think the sentence you start out with is both interesting and engaging. I am not sure I agree with that idea exactly, as lots of things we have talked about in class have potential for a great magnitude of change. In my opinion, I think comparing magnitude of change brings up challenges and controversy as the type of change can vary greatly, in turn so can the magnitude. I completely agree with the complexity of the topic and the various aspects you mentioned that make it that much more challenging to fully get a grasp on. I like the argument you make in your last sentence of the first paragraph, but I would consider restricting your word choice to make it flow more smoothly.
I think you did a great job in analyzing the readings. I especially enjoyed your point about the value that various disciplines and voices brought to the table. It is easy to get caught up in one perspective and jump to conclusions about different topics, especially when the argument is one-sided. When you mention the “staunch view”, I think it would be valuable if you elaborate a bit more. I think if you expand even more on your personal opinion, it would make understanding your point of view easier. When you bring up morality of Jewish men and women, I think it is a good way to support your argument with evidence. However, I would encourage you to provide a bit more background on that and answer the “why” question to the background. I agree with the point you bring up about committee lacking faith in humanities moral capabilities.
I like the way you summed everything up and concluded with your perspective on what change entails and what it can look like.
Best,
Shauna
Dear Brantley,
I appreciate your comparative response that considers how each of this unit’s texts relate to one another as well as how they differ. “Human Cloning and Human Dignity” (Kass 2002) does offer a unique vantage point in comparison to the other texts for this week- as it is written in a way that captures varied voices and sentiments on the topic of cloning.
You mentioned the committee’s decision to rule out the usage of human cloning for reproduction because they felt their moral reasoning capacities were insufficient in handling such a controversial issue. This is true, but it is important to provide citations to support this assertion. Later you included a couple quotes from the Kass text but did not mention any page numbers either.
Why do you feel the other texts offer a more limited view because they consider religious perspectives? Perhaps the Kass text may be a tad limited in not incorporating religious morality. Perhaps the most complete view of cloning would examine both secular considerations and religious musings on the topic.
Just a few thoughts on grammar and stylistic suggestions to help increase the clarity in your blog post:
Your first and second sentences sound a bit like the same idea to me- both of them convey that discussing human cloning adds to the variety of topics we’ve discussed in our class this semester.
You could also be a bit more specific in general but especially in this sentence, “After reading this week’s articles, I found by exploring the ethical, moral, and technological ideas behind human cloning I was able to gain insight into a vast array of issues,” to which issues to you refer? Could “perspectives” be a better word to capture what you are referring to here?
Quick note- “biologist” should be “biologists”.
I was also a tad confused by your wording in this sentence: “None more so than science’s role in society, and under what framework such dynamic and complex issues such as human cloning and should be examined.” I was pretty unclear on what you meant here. Do you mean you felt the texts examined the complexity of human cloning within the realm of modern science? What did you mean by dynamic here?
Hi Brantley,
I think your blog is well-written and easy to follow. Adding a few more quotes may help clarify and strengthen some of your arguments. There are few points in the readings I found interesting and were also hinted by you in the blog. Both authors have the similar purpose of suggesting a neutral voice to the cloning debate from distinctive perspectives. While the “Human Cloning and Human Dignity” provides different voices from U.S. politics, the “Cloning People: A Jewish Law Analysis of the Issues” offer different views from the Jewish community. It sounded to me that you think the U.S. president’s committee took a relatively arbitrary and broad approach to the issue of human cloning on reproduction by “lacking such understanding” so “no one should take action so drastic as the cloning of a human child.” Perhaps adding more summary about the content to on the decision making process of Congress and how it makes the policy making inefficient could help readers better understand your rational. In contrast, you stated that the approach taken by Broyde was “too narrow” since he views cloning merely as one of the assisted reproductive technologies. However, as you mentioned in the beginning that “topic shared by all of three articles is that of human-cloning-for-reproduction and therefore will be the one explored here,” so isn/’t the “narrowness” of Broyde’s approach helping us to better understand the issue at hand?
It does seem that by narrowing the cosmological concerns to one specific religion or culture instead of trying to pursue a common ground from a variety of different cosmologies involved in U.S. politics makes the Broydes’ argument more effective. The Jewish beliefs are stated explicitly in Broyde’s argument while the Christian values are embedded in Kass’s argument. For example, Christian statements such as “to be alive is to be vulnerable to suffering” (Kass 138) are frequently seen in the committees moral reasoning process.
I also had quite a bit of trouble understanding how the approach in “Negotiating Life: The Regulation of Human Cloning and Embryonic Stem Cell Research” seemed hyperbolic. And how does “cloning herself let a woman to circumvent the complex rules set up by her religion?”
Overall, I really enjoyed reading your blog as it is thought provoking and summarizes the core of the readings very well. Some clarification will definitely further improve the readers understanding of some interesting points you have mentioned.
Brantley,
Great post! I like how you start off by mention the gravity of this situation and how this topic actually has the potential to change. I also like how you mention that this particular reading did not have a single author. In some ways I liked this approach because it felt more concise and to the point than other readings we’ve had. However, I feel that it didn’t include viewpoints that I would have liked to hear– particular the viewpoint of women’s feelings about using them as sources of cloning and reproduction.
The readings this week juxtaposed each other in an interesting way. Should we be looking at cloning and reproduction from a legal or moral standpoint? To me, each of these approaches are very different and together, they further complicate the issue.
Overall, I think your post was thought provoking and well-written. I like that you incorporated your stance in the matter while still using quotations to support your argument! As far as a critique, in the future I would use more supporting evidence, particularly when you make a claim comparing two readings to each other. It will help the reader see the juxtaposition more clearly!