Article Text
Abstract
The most publicly justifiable application of human cloning, if there is one at all, is to provide self-compatible cells or tissues for medical use, especially transplantation. Some have argued that this raises no new ethical issues above those raised by any form of embryo experimentation. I argue that this research is less morally problematic than other embryo research. Indeed, it is not merely morally permissible but morally required that we employ cloning to produce embryos or fetuses for the sake of providing cells, tissues or even organs for therapy, followed by abortion of the embryo or fetus.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Request Permissions
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Linked Articles
Other content recommended for you
- Reproductive and therapeutic cloning, germline therapy, and purchase of gametes and embryos: comments on Canadian legislation governing reproduction technologies
- Ethical and legal aspects of stem cell practices in Turkey: where are we
- What exactly is an exact copy? And why it matters when trying to ban human reproductive cloning in Australia
- Is a consensus possible on stem cell research? Moral and political obstacles
- Why the apparent haste to clone humans
- Research Ethics, Science Policy, and Four Contexts for the Stem Cell Debate
- Reproductive cloning in humans and therapeutic cloning in primates: is the ethical debate catching up with the recent scientific advances
- Cell phoney: human cloning after Quintavalle
- In the world of Dolly, when does a human embryo acquire respect
- Why two arguments from probability fail and one argument from Thomson ’s analogy of the violinist succeeds in justifying embryo destruction in some situations