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
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.
Other content recommended for you
- Is a consensus possible on stem cell research? Moral and political obstacles
- 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?
- Why the apparent haste to clone humans?
- Reproductive cloning in humans and therapeutic cloning in primates: is the ethical debate catching up with the recent scientific advances?
- What exactly is an exact copy? And why it matters when trying to ban human reproductive cloning in Australia
- Human embryonic stem cell research debates: a Confucian argument
- Why two arguments from probability fail and one argument from Thomson’s analogy of the violinist succeeds in justifying embryo destruction in some situations
- What’s in a name? Embryos, entities, and ANTities in the stem cell debate
- The moral status of the embryo post-Dolly