DOCSLIB.ORG

In Defense of Cloning Nathan Bruner

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

In Defense of Cloning Nathan Bruner Mary Had a Little Lamb Mary had a little lamb, its fleece was slightly gray It didn’t have a father, just some borrowed DNA. It sort of had a mother, though the ovum was on loan, It was not so much a lambkin as a little lamby clone. And soon it had a fellow clone, and soon it had some more, They followed her to school one day, all cramming through the door. It made the children laugh and sing, the teachers found it droll, There were too many lamby clones, for Mary to control. No other could control the sheep, since the programs didn’t vary So the scientists resolved it all, by simply cloning Mary. But now they feel quite sheepish, those scientists unwary, One problem solved but what to do, with Mary, Mary, Mary. ---- Anonymous Internet post “Much Confusion Over Cloning,” a recent common misconceptions concerning human headline reads. Few could find words to describe cloning; third, present some common arguments the situation better. Since its emergence as an ever against cloning and explain why these seem to fail; approaching scientific possibility, the cloning of and finally, present a positive argument for the complete complex organisms, including humans, cloning of human beings. has sparked much fear, debate, and confusion in our society. This new possibility has raised many What is Cloning? questions, chiefly, “Should we clone humans?” One of the greatest problems in the debate Largely, it seems, the answer to this question has over cloning humans is the extent to which been a resounding “No!” Unfortunately this debate widespread misconceptions exist about what has been mostly one-sided, with almost everyone cloning involves. One key to debating any issue is taking a position against cloning. I believe this has to know what exactly is being discussed. caused a number of harmful side effects. First, weak Unfortunately, few people know what cloning arguments are tolerated for lack of anyone willing actually is in its present form. With this in mind, let to take the opposing view. Second, misconceptions us examine exactly what the procedure is that is and misunderstandings about cloning are widely now being debated. circulated because few make any effort to correct ‘Cloning’ is a term with multiple meanings them. Third, the conclusions reached are in biology and medicine. It refers to a number of uninformed at best. It is very difficult, perhaps procedures that create a duplicate of some kind of impossible to make a good decision about any organism. As Gregory Pence explains, “‘Cloning’ is matter without having heard both sides of the an ambiguous term, even in science, and may refer debate. It is for this reason that I have decided to to molecular cloning, cellular cloning, embryo present a defense of the position in favor of cloning twinning, and nuclear somatic transfer (NST)” humans. To do this I will first, explain what exactly (Pence, 11). The current debate concerns the last of the process of cloning is as most people intend to these, nuclear somatic transfer. What this procedure refer to it; second, take a look at a few of themost entails is removing the nucleus from an egg cell and 7 replacing it with the nucleus from a normal adult the same, have every memory, every scar, and the tissue cell. If all goes well, the host egg will develop same personality and intelligence as her into an embryo, going through the normal counterpart. This, however, is clearly beyond the development into a full organism with an exact reach of current science. What a human clone will copy of the adult’s DNA. Actually this does not be is, very simply, a genetic twin of the person exactly describe the situation. One thing that is not being cloned. She will be much younger than her identical in the clone is its mitochondrial DNA. counterpart, as the counterpart will be an adult Mitochondria are the little organelles in every cell when the clone is being birthed, and she will have that create chemicals to catalyze reactions in the slight differences in mitochondria, as we saw cell. In strict nuclear somatic transfer all of the earlier. She will have none of the counterpart’s mitochondrial DNA is provided by the host egg, but memories, as DNA does not contain memory, and in 1997, Dr. Ian Wilmut and his team used a slightly she may have somewhat different intelligence and different form of NST to clone Dolly the lamb, the personality. All this indicates that cloning will, in first complex, adult creature to be cloned by no sense, create a “Xerox copy,” as some people scientists. In this process, called “fusion,” seem to think from seeing science fiction portrayals mitochondria from the host egg and the donor cell (Pence, 49-51). are mixed, creating a closer, but still not exact Another misconception that results from match to the donor’s mitochondrial makeup. This science fiction is what I would like to call the “evil difference in mitochondria, while minor, could still uses” misconception. Many people seem to think affect how a clone turns out. The clone will not be that clones, if created, will be used for all kinds of genetically identical to the DNA donor unless the evil purposes. Among these is creating clones for donor also provides the host egg, which, of course, use as slaves or menial laborers, humans who must will only be possible with females (Pence, 11). The obey our every command because we created them, process outlined above is what I will be referring to or “growing” a biological twin in order to harvest throughout the rest of this paper when I use the term her organs in case of an emergency. Surprisingly, ‘cloning.’ these are beliefs not merely held by laypeople, but by some considered to be experts as well. Nigel A Few Misconceptions Cameron, theologian and bioethicist at Trinity Many ideas that people have concerning International University, says that cloning “would cloning are not grounded in actual scientific be perhaps the worst thing we have ever thought of knowledge of the procedure and its consequences, in the maltreatment of our species. It would be a but are grounded in ideas propagated by inflated new kind of slave class. You would have human media stories and by the far-off realm of science beings who were made by other human beings for fiction. From press stories about future “baby their purposes” (Pence, 46). Guardian Unlimited, an manufacturing plants” to fiction stories about international news and information website based in armies of clones created to fight for humanity but England reports, “A supply of donor organs, [is instead turning against us, numerous fantastical one] of the more mainstream reasons to clone ideas about cloning are floating around. Far too humans” (Human Cloning) many exist to address in a short essay, but I would This, however, is absurd. If clones were like to examine at least a few misconceptions that treated in this manner certainly it would be horrible, people hold. but there is no reason to think that clones will be Cloning has been a popular topic in science treated in this manner. A clone will be just as much fiction movies, books, and television. Blade Runner, a living, breathing, thinking, emotional, and distinct Multiplicity, Star Trek, Jurassic Park, The Boys human being as anyone. The only difference from Brazil, and many others have portrayed between her and other humans would be her cloning in some manner. One of the most popular “unnatural” conception. But others are alive through misconceptions that results from science fiction means of “unnatural” conception. Consider artificial portrayal is that a human clone will be identical in insemination and in-vitro fertilization. People every way to the person being cloned. She will look conceived by these methods are treated no worse 8 than other humans. We do not use them for slave moral clarity and seriousness” and having labor or as organ donors, because we know that they “transcended the initial commentaries on all sides of are just as much human as us. In the same way, the issue” (Long, ix). Also, he artfully presents because it is known that clones will be normal three of the most common arguments against humans, they will not be used for these evil designs cloning. Yet I feel that each of the objections either. As Pence states in his book Who’s Afraid of presented by Dr. Kass falls short of its aim of Human Cloning?, “Because humans originated by showing that cloning humans is morally wrong. cloning are persons, it follows that we cannot kill such persons for their organs. This would be no A Repugnant Argument more ethical or legal than knocking out your Dr. Kass presents his arguments in “The brother, transporting him to a hospital… and taking Wisdom of Repugnance,” an essay that he wrote out one of his organs for transplantation” (Pence, and published fairly quickly after the lamb Dolly 47). Now this is not to underestimate the capacity was cloned. The first is the argument from which for evil in some people. There surely are some who his essay gets its title. This argument presents his would want to use clones for just such purposes. view that our natural revulsion or repugnance to But with clear, established governmental guidelines cloning humans, almost universally felt, represents and good education on the process, such people a deeper wisdom or understanding that the cloning would be prevented from carrying out their wishes. of human beings is fundamentally morally wrong.
Recommended publications
  • Hindu Bioethics for the Twenty-First Century

    Hindu Bioethics for the Twenty-First Century

    Journal of Hindu-Christian Studies Volume 14 Article 9 January 2001 Hindu Bioethics for the Twenty-First Century S. Cromwell Crawford Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.butler.edu/jhcs Part of the Religion Commons Recommended Citation Crawford, S. Cromwell (2001) "Hindu Bioethics for the Twenty-First Century," Journal of Hindu-Christian Studies: Vol. 14, Article 9. Available at: https://doi.org/10.7825/2164-6279.1252 The Journal of Hindu-Christian Studies is a publication of the Society for Hindu-Christian Studies. The digital version is made available by Digital Commons @ Butler University. For questions about the Journal or the Society, please contact [email protected]. For more information about Digital Commons @ Butler University, please contact [email protected]. -- Crawford: Hindu Bioethics for the Twenty-First Century Hindu Bioethics for the Twenty-First Century s. Cromwell Crawford University of Hawaii Introduction focus on these three distinctive features of Hindu bioethics, namely: its medical basis; IN his Cross Cultural Perspectives in its philosophical framework; its ethical Medical Ethics: Readings, Robert Veatch orientation. observes, "The religions of Judaism and Christianity and the secular thought of the Distinctive Features of Hindu Bioethics political philosophy of liberalism in the Anglo-American West are not the only Medical Basis alternatives to a Hippocratic medical ethic."J A unique feature of Hinduism is that a fully In fact, the new pluralistic approach to world fledged system of medicine evolved within .cultures is introducing us to several religious its complex ethos. The historical and philosophical alternatives from outside developments are shrouded in mystery due the Anglo-American West.
  • Eugenics, Biopolitics, and the Challenge of the Techno-Human Condition

    Eugenics, Biopolitics, and the Challenge of the Techno-Human Condition

    Nathan VAN CAMP Redesigning Life The emerging development of genetic enhancement technologies has recently become the focus of a public and philosophical debate between proponents and opponents of a liberal eugenics – that is, the use of Eugenics, Biopolitics, and the Challenge these technologies without any overall direction or governmental control. Inspired by Foucault’s, Agamben’s of the Techno-Human Condition and Esposito’s writings about biopower and biopolitics, Life Redesigning the author sees both positions as equally problematic, as both presuppose the existence of a stable, autonomous subject capable of making decisions concerning the future of human nature, while in the age of genetic technology the nature of this subjectivity shall be less an origin than an effect of such decisions. Bringing together a biopolitical critique of the way this controversial issue has been dealt with in liberal moral and political philosophy with a philosophical analysis of the nature of and the relation between life, politics, and technology, the author sets out to outline the contours of a more responsible engagement with genetic technologies based on the idea that technology is an intrinsic condition of humanity. Nathan VAN CAMP Nathan VAN Philosophy Philosophy Nathan Van Camp is postdoctoral researcher at the University of Antwerp, Belgium. He focuses on continental philosophy, political theory, biopolitics, and critical theory. & Politics ISBN 978-2-87574-281-0 Philosophie & Politique 27 www.peterlang.com P.I.E. Peter Lang Nathan VAN CAMP Redesigning Life The emerging development of genetic enhancement technologies has recently become the focus of a public and philosophical debate between proponents and opponents of a liberal eugenics – that is, the use of Eugenics, Biopolitics, and the Challenge these technologies without any overall direction or governmental control.
  • The Rebbe and the Yak

    The Rebbe and the Yak

    Hillel Halkin on King James: The Harold Bloom Version JEWISH REVIEW Volume 2, Number 3 Fall 2011 $6.95 OF BOOKS Alan Mintz The Rebbe and the Yak Ruth R. Wisse Yehudah Mirsky Adam Kirsch Moshe Halbertal The Faith of Reds On Law & Forgiveness Yehuda Amital Elli Fischer & Shai Secunda Footnote: the Movie! Ruth Gavison The Nation of Israel? Philip Getz Birthright & Diaspora PLUS Did Billie Holiday Sing Yo's Blues? Sermons & Anti-Sermons & MORE Editor Abraham Socher Publisher Eric Cohen The history of America — Senior Contributing Editor one fear, one monster, Allan Arkush Editorial Board at a time Robert Alter Shlomo Avineri “An unexpected guilty pleasure! Poole invites us Leora Batnitzky into an important and enlightening, if disturbing, Ruth Gavison conversation about the very real monsters that Moshe Halbertal inhabit the dark spaces of America’s past.” Hillel Halkin – J. Gordon Melton, Institute for the Study of American Religion Jon D. Levenson Anita Shapira “A well informed, thoughtful, and indeed frightening Michael Walzer angle of vision to a compelling American desire to J. H.H. Weiler be entertained by the grotesque and the horrific.” Leon Wieseltier – Gary Laderman, Emory University Ruth R. Wisse Available in October at fine booksellers everywhere. Steven J. Zipperstein Assistant Editor Philip Getz Art Director Betsy Klarfeld Business Manager baylor university press Lori Dorr baylorpress.com Interns Kif Leswing Arielle Orenstein The Jewish Review of Books (Print ISSN 2153-1978, An eloquent intellectual Online ISSN 2153-1994) is a quarterly publication of ideas and criticism published in Spring, history of the human Summer, Fall, and Winter, by Bee.Ideas, LLC., 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1400, New York, NY 10151.
  • Repugnance” Lens of Gonzales V

    Repugnance” Lens of Gonzales V

    The “Repugnance” Lens of Gonzales v. Carhart and Other Theories of Reproductive Rights: Evaluating Advanced Reproductive Technologies Sonia M. Suter* Introduction .................................................... 1515 I. Constitutional Theories of Reproductive Rights ........ 1520 A. Procreative Liberty and Personal Autonomy........ 1520 1. IVF............................................. 1523 2. Disposition of Embryos ......................... 1527 3. Prenatal Testing................................. 1530 4. PIGD ........................................... 1537 5. Fetal or Embryonic Genetic Modification ...... 1537 B. Nation’s History and Tradition—An Assault on Autonomy-Based Reproductive Rights ............. 1540 C. Privacy of Person and Bodily Integrity ............. 1544 D. Familial and Parental Privacy ....................... 1548 E. Equality Theory .................................... 1556 1. IVF............................................. 1561 2. Testing for and Treating Disease ................ 1562 3. Trait Selection and Genetic Modification ....... 1564 II. Gonzales v. Carhart ..................................... 1566 A. Interpreting Reproductive Rights Through the Lens of “Repugnance” ................................... 1569 1. Lack of Health Exception ...................... 1569 2. State Interests .................................. 1576 a. Protecting the Mother’s Health ............. 1576 b. Protecting Potential Life .................... 1579 * Associate Professor, The George Washington University Law School. B.A., Michigan
  • HUMAN CLONING Papers from a Church Consultation

    HUMAN CLONING Papers from a Church Consultation

    HUMAN CLONING Papers From a Church Consultation Evangelical Lutheran Church in America October 13-15, 2000 Chicago, Illinois Roger A. Willer, editor HUMAN CLONING Papers From a Church Consultation Roger A. Willer, editor Copyright © 2001 Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. Produced by the Department for Studies of the Division for Church in Society, 8765 W. Higgins Rd., Chicago, Illinois, 60631-4190. Permission is granted to reproduce this document as needed provided each copy carries the copyright notice printed above. Scripture quotations from the New Standard Revised Version of the Bible are copyright © 1989 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of Churches of Christ in the United States of America and are used by permission. Cover image © copyright 1999 PhotoDisc, Inc. The figure found on page nine is adapted from the National Institute of Health, Stem Cells: A Primer at <www.nih.gov/ news/stemcell/primer.htm>. ISBN 6-0001-3165-8. Distributed on behalf of the Division for Church in Society of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America by Augsburg Fortress, Publishers. Augsburg Fortress order code 69-1550. This publication may be found online in its entirety as a downloadable PDF (portable document file) at <www.elca.org/ dcs/humancloning.html>. Printed on recycled paper with soy-based inks. Contents Contributors 3 Preface 4 Introduction 5 Section One, The Science and the Public Debate Kevin Fitzgerald Cloning: Can it be Good for Us? 8 Margaret R. McLean Table Talk and Public Policy Formation in the Clone Age 14 Richard Perry Broadening the Churchs Conversation 23 Section Two, Theological Resources Philip Hefner Cloning: The Destiny and Dangers of Being Human 27 Richard C.
  • Legatees of a Great Inheritance: How the Judeo-Christian Tradition Has Shaped the West 428287 Text.Qxp 5/6/08 9:18 AM Page KJ1

    Legatees of a Great Inheritance: How the Judeo-Christian Tradition Has Shaped the West 428287 Text.Qxp 5/6/08 9:18 AM Page KJ1

    428287_Cover.qxp 5/1/08 9:19 AM Page 3 Legatees of a Great Inheritance: How the Judeo-Christian Tradition Has Shaped the West 428287_Text.qxp 5/6/08 9:18 AM Page KJ1 Civilisations die from suicide, not murder. —Arnold J. Toynbee Throughout its most flourishing periods, Western civilization has produced a culture which happily absorbs and adapts the cultures of other places, other faiths, and other times. Its basic fund of stories, its moral precepts, and its religious imagery come from the Hebrew Bible and the Greek New Testament. —Roger Scruton Copyright © 2008 by Kairos Journal (kairosjournal.org). All rights reserved. KJOP-02 428287_Text.qxp 5/6/08 9:18 AM Page KJ2 estern civilization is indebted to the Judeo-Christian tradition for its notions of human dignity and human Wrights, its innovation in science and medicine, its habits of humanitarian charity and universal education, and its rich contribution to the arts. Though once commonplace, this claim has become increasingly controversial, challenged by the revisionists of late modernity as well as those who suffer from historical amnesia. As the prodigious Jewish scholar Jacob Neusner has said, “Religion has written much of the history of the West.”3 Or as British sociologist and historian of culture Christopher Dawson once put it, “Western culture has been the atmosphere we breathe and the life we live: it is our own way of life and the way of life of our ancestors; and therefore we know it not merely by documents and monuments, but from our personal experience.”4 Even the notorious atheist Christopher Hitchens agrees that Western culture makes little sense without attending to the contribution of biblical religion: “You are not educated,” he maintains,” if you don’t know the Bible.
  • Inquiry Into the Scientific, Ethical and Regulatory Considerations Relevant to Cloning of Human Beings

    Inquiry Into the Scientific, Ethical and Regulatory Considerations Relevant to Cloning of Human Beings

    Inquiry into the Scientific, Ethical and Regulatory Considerations Relevant to Cloning of Human Beings Submission to theHouse of RepresentativesStanding Committee on Legal & Constitutional AffairsInquiry into Cloning: xiv.iii.2000 by the Research Department of theAustralian Catholic Bishops Conference Executive Summary 1. Human dignity must be accorded to all members of the human family, from the creation of the first cell (through which stage all of us have travelled), until natural death. 2. Human dignity must be the principal touchstone against which policy and law are measured. 3. Human life, of whatever age, and especially the most vulnerable (e.g. those with a voice still to be recognised completely in law - conceptus, embryos and foetuses) must be protected from exploitation. No member of the human family may be exploited, for economic or other gain, so as to become a field for harvesting embryonic stem cells or embryonic germ cells. 4. Human life, of whatever age, and especially the most vulnerable (e.g. those with a voice still to be recognised completely in law - conceptus, embryos and foetuses) must be protected from being produced in order to be sacrificed for the purpose of gaining “scientific information" or otherwise sacrificed `for the benefit of others.’ 5. Law, and the public policy which it purports to reflect, has an educative dimension, a protective dimension, and a regulative dimension, all of which are for the common good of the community. The legislative regulation of artificial reproductive technology must attend to all such dimensions. 6. Medical and scientific research is to be encouraged and supported - but not at all costs.
  • The Wisdom of Repugnance: Why We Should Ban the Cloning of Humans

    The Wisdom of Repugnance: Why We Should Ban the Cloning of Humans

    Valparaiso University Law Review Volume 32 Number 2 Spring 1998 pp.679-705 Spring 1998 The Wisdom of Repugnance: Why We Should Ban the Cloning of Humans Leon R. Kass Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/vulr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Leon R. Kass, The Wisdom of Repugnance: Why We Should Ban the Cloning of Humans, 32 Val. U. L. Rev. 679 (1998). Available at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/vulr/vol32/iss2/12 This Symposium is brought to you for free and open access by the Valparaiso University Law School at ValpoScholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Valparaiso University Law Review by an authorized administrator of ValpoScholar. For more information, please contact a ValpoScholar staff member at [email protected]. Kass: The Wisdom of Repugnance: Why We Should Ban the Cloning of Humans THE WISDOM OF REPUGNANCE: WHY WE SHOULD BAN THE CLONING OF HUMANS LEON R. KASS" I. INTRODUCTION Our habit of delighting in news of scientific and technological breakthroughs has been sorely challenged by the birth announcement of a sheep named Dolly. Though Dolly shares with previous sheep the "softest clothing, woolly, bright," William Blake's question, "Little Lamb, who made thee?"' has for her a radically different answer: Dolly was, quite literally, made. She is the work not of nature or nature's God but of man, an Englishman, Ian Wilmut, and his fellow scientists. What's more, Dolly came into being not only asexually-ironically, just like "He [who] calls Himself a Lamb" 2-but also as the genetically identical copy (and the perfect incarnation of the form or blueprint) of a mature ewe, of whom she is a clone.
  • The Ethics of Human Cloning

    The Ethics of Human Cloning

    AI Ethics/Human Cloning INT 7/9/04 3:15 PM Page 1 The Ethics of Human Cloning John Woodward, Book Editor Bruce Glassman, Vice President Bonnie Szumski, Publisher Helen Cothran, Managing Editor Detroit • New York • San Francisco • San Diego • New Haven, Conn. Waterville, Maine • London • Munich AI Ethics/Human Cloning INT 7/9/04 3:15 PM Page 2 © 2005 Thomson Gale, a part of The Thomson Corporation. Thomson and Star Logo are trademarks and Gale and Greenhaven Press are registered trademarks used herein under license. For more information, contact Greenhaven Press 27500 Drake Rd. Farmington Hills, MI 48331-3535 Or you can visit our Internet site at http://www.gale.com ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No part of this work covered by the copyright hereon may be reproduced or used in any form or by any means—graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping, Web distribution or information storage retrieval systems—without the written permission of the publisher. Every effort has been made to trace the owners of copyrighted material. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOGING-IN-PUBLICATION DATA The ethics of human cloning / John Woodward, book editor. p. cm. — (At issue) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-7377-2186-3 (lib. bdg. : alk. paper) — ISBN 0-7377-2187-1 (pbk. : alk. paper) 1. Human cloning—Moral and ethical aspects. I. Woodward, John, 1958– . II. At issue (San Diego, Calif.) QH438.7.E844 2005 176—dc22 2004048217 Printed in the United States of America AI Ethics/Human Cloning INT 7/9/04 3:15 PM Page 3 Contents Page Introduction 4 1.
  • Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering

    Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering

    GLOBAL ISSUES BIOTECHNOLOGY AND GENETIC ENGINEERING GLOBAL ISSUES BIOTECHNOLOGY AND GENETIC ENGINEERING Kathy Wilson Peacock Foreword by Charles Hagedorn, Ph.D. Professor, Environmental Microbiology, Virginia Tech GLOBAL ISSUES: BioTECHNologY AND GENETIC ENgiNeeRING Copyright © 2010 by Infobase Publishing All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage or retrieval systems, without permission in writing from the publisher. For information contact: Facts On File, Inc. An imprint of Infobase Publishing 132 West 31st Street New York NY 10001 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Peacock, Kathy Wilson. Biotechnology and genetic engineering / Kathy Wilson Peacock; foreword by Charles Hagedorn. p.; cm. — (Global issues) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-8160-7784-7 (alk. paper) 1. Biotechnology—Popular works. 2. Genetic engineering—Popular works. I. Title. II. Series: Global issues (Facts on File, Inc.) [DNLM: 1. Biotechnology. 2. Genetic Engineering. 3. Organisms, Genetically Modified—genetics. QU 450 P352b 2010] TP248.215.P43 2010 660.6—dc22 2009025794 Facts On File books are available at special discounts when purchased in bulk quantities for businesses, associations, institutions, or sales promotions. Please call our Special Sales Department in New York at (212) 967-8800 or (800) 322-8755. You can find Facts On File on the World Wide Web at http://www.factsonfile.com Text design by Erika K. Arroyo Illustrations by Dale Williams Composition by Mary Susan Ryan-Flynn Cover printed by Art Print, Taylor, Pa. Book printed and bound by Maple Press, York, Pa.
  • Is There a Constitutional Right to Clone?

    Is There a Constitutional Right to Clone?

    Is There a Constitutional Right to Clone? The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Cass R. Sunstein, Is There a Constitutional Right to Clone? (Public Law & Legal Theory Working Papers No. 22, 2002). Published Version http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/ public_law_and_legal_theory/168/ Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:12921750 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA University of Chicago Law School Chicago Unbound Public Law and Legal Theory Working Papers Working Papers 2002 Is There a Constitutional Right to Clone? Cass R. Sunstein Follow this and additional works at: http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/ public_law_and_legal_theory Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Cass R. Sunstein, "Is There a Constitutional Right to Clone?" (Public Law & Legal Theory Working Papers No. 22, 2002). This Working Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Working Papers at Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in Public Law and Legal Theory Working Papers by an authorized administrator of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CHICAGO PUBLIC LAW AND LEGAL THEORY WORKING PAPER NO. 22 IS THERE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO CLONE? Cass R. Sunstein THE LAW SCHOOL THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO This paper can be downloaded without charge at: The Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper Collection: http://papers.ssrn.com/paper.taf?abstract_id=XXXXXX Preliminary draft 4/5/02 All rights reserved Is There a Constitutional Right to Clone? Cass R.
  • Reasons, Reflection, and Repugnance

    Reasons, Reflection, and Repugnance

    OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 07/18/2016, SPi 4 Reasons, Reflection, and Repugnance Doug McConnell and Jeanette Kennett 4.1 Introduction In a widely cited article, ‘The Wisdom of Repugnance’ (1997), moral conservative Leon Kass claims that, ‘in crucial cases [. .] repugnance is the emotional expression of deep wisdom, beyond reason’s power fully to articulate it’ (1997, p. 20). He argues that ‘the burden of moral argument must fall entirely on those who want to declare the wide- spread repugnances of humankind to be mere timidity or superstition’ (1997, p. 21). Kass focuses on repugnance at human cloning and IVF but presumably he would gen- eralize his view to a range of enhancement technologies. He believes that we are too readily ‘enchanted and enslaved by the glamour of technology’ (Kass 1997, p. 18) and that technology can undermine valuable aspects of our humanity. In this chapter we draw comparisons between Kass’ views on the normative authority of repugnance and social intuitionist accounts of moral judgement which are similarly sceptical about the role of reasoned reflection in moral judgement. We survey the empir- ical claims made in support of giving moral primacy to intuitions generated by emotions such as repugnance, as well as some common objections. We then examine accounts which integrate intuition and reflection, and argue that plausible accounts of wisdom are in tension with Kass’ claim that our inarticulable emotional responses can be the expres- sion of deep wisdom. We conclude that while repugnance and other emotions have a role to play in informing deliberation and judgement, we have reason to be cautious in giving them normative authority.