Human Cloning

This book addresses the motif of literary twinship from the Shakespearean age until today. Twins have all too often been discussed as mere footnotes to the allegedly more nuanced motif of the doppelganger, or as a kind of 'embarrassing' secret of literary history that is said to occur merely in inferior genres like farce or horror fiction. This study, by contrast, makes a case for the complexity of literary twinship across the literary spectrum, and it demonstrates that twinship articulates bodily anxieties, dynastic troubles, and genetic concerns that the classic double trope cannot ac-commodate. While the book does not deliver a complete and unabridged history of literary twin-ship (as such a history would inevitably be one marked by long gaps), it still examines twinship in a diachronic fashion and in different historical periods in order to show how the category of twinship is frequently re-negotiated as part of larger discursive shifts. Some historical periods understand twins mainly as a biological conundrum that threatens to expose the arbitrary laws of dynastic kin-ship, others as an epistemological problem that challenges any attempt to impose clear-cut definitions.
The individual case studies trace the development of the category of twinship over time, demonstrating how the twin was repeatedly (re-)invented as a cultural and pathological type when other discursive areas (including the fields of criminology and eugenics) constituted themselves, and how it served as the battleground for ideological disputes. It is in-midst of these discursive processes that I locate literary twinship, and my goal is not to demonstrate that literature 'mirrors' scientific debates of the day. Not only is it evident that literature frequently prefigured the discussions of modern twin scholarship, it has also been instrumental in facilitating these debates and in contributing to the negotiation of power shifts, for instance by setting the stage for debates regarding kinship systems in the Shakespearean age, by engaging in the Victorian reformulation of the criminal as genetically/pathologically evil, or by contributing to the dystopian quality of cloning discourse in the 20th century.

The prospect of creating children through somatic cell nuclear transfer has elicited widespread concern, much of it in the form of fears about harms to the children who may be born as a result. There are concerns about possible physical harms from the manipulations of ova, nuclei, and embryos, which are parts of the technology, and about possible psychological harms, such as a diminished sense of individuality and personal autonomy. There are ethical concerns as well about a degradation of the quality of parenting and family life if parents are tempted to seek excessive control over their children's characteristics, to value children according to how well they meet overly detailed parental expectations, and to undermine the acceptance and openness that typify loving families. Virtually all people agree that the current risks of physical harm to children associated with somatic cell nuclear transplantation cloning might justify a prohibition at this time on such experimentation[i]. In addition to physical harms, many worry about psychological harms associated with such cloning. One of the forms of psychological harm most frequently mentioned is the possible loss of a sense of uniqueness. Although the myth of genetic determinism is dispelled, but some doubts about cloning and identity remain that I am going to argue that somatic cell nuclear transfer cloning creates serious issues of identity and individuality especially in the Psychological identity and forces us to reconsider how we define ourselves because Cloned children each will be genetically virtually identical to a human being who has already lived and also the expectations for their lives may be shadowed by constant comparisons to the life of the “original.”[ii] Moreover, comment on the importance of genetic uniqueness not only for individuals but also in the eyes of their parents

O trabalho pretende responder se os humanos clonados artificialmente na série televisiva Orphan Black são tratados como commodities ao explorar discussões no campo da bioética que envolvem clonagem humana artificial. Para tal, serão descritos debates prévios e presentes sobre a clonagem artificial, assim como a condição em que o humano seria colocado caso a clonagem humana artificial obtenha sucesso. As visões de Jean Baudrillard e Donna Haraway serão comparadas. A metodologia empregada será a análise de episódios de Orphan Black, junto à revisão bibliográfica.

The objective of the present article is to determine the specific characteristics of the established international legal framework for the application of genetic technologies and to identify general guidelines that influence states' policies in this area. Genetic technologies evolve rapidly, raising a number of ethical and legal issues and directly affecting human rights. At the universal level, there is still no international treaty containing uniform rules in this field. At the regional level, the experience of the Council of Europe deserves further study. National approaches to the legal regulation of applying genetic technologies differ since States retain a great deal of discretion in regulating these issues. Though the Council of Europe Member States enjoy a margin of appreciation in regulating the use of genetic technologies, a number of common distinctive features underlying the international legal framework in this area can still be singled out. These are informed consent, prohibition of reproductive human cloning, prohibition of germ line modification with certain exceptions. They arise primarily from the Oviedo Convention, the Protocols thereto and the ECtHR practice. Soft law documents adopted at the UN, UNESCO and the Council of Europe contribute to the process of their formation, too, but to a lesser extent. The efforts undertaken at the European and universal level shape modern international legal regulation in the field and set up the course of action for States to follow.

Este trabalho procurará analisar a representação de clones humanos na série televisiva Orphan Black com base nas obras de Donna Haraway e Jean Baudrillard, ao ponderar aproximações e distanciamentos entre as abordagens propostas pela série e os dois pensadores citados. Para tal, as ideias de clonagem humana artificial e biotecnologia retratadas em Orphan Black serão analisadas, com ênfase nos campos da bioética, transhumanismo e individualidade. A partir desses aprofundamentos, a pesquisa discutirá como Orphan Black traz informações pertinentes a respeito da biotecnologia para seu público. A metodologia empregada será a análise de episódios de Orphan Black baseada em conceitos dos Estudos Culturais Críticos propostos por Kellner (2001). A revisão bibliográfica se também se faz necessária, tendo como base as obras de Jean Baudrillard e Donna Haraway.

Από το οπισθόφυλλο:

Ἡ βιοηθική ἐπέχει τό ρόλο γέφυρας πού ἐπιχειρεῖ νά συνδέει καί νά φέρνει σέ ἁρμονία τό ἐπιστημονικά ἐφικτό μέ τό ἠθικά ὀρθό. Καί ὅσο περισσότερο τό ἐπιστημονικά ἐφικτό ἐπεκτείνεται σέ ἐπεμβάσεις πού ἀφοροῦν ἀκόμα καί στίς πλέον εὐαίσθητες ἐκφάνσεις τῆς ζωῆς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, τόσο περισσότερο γίνεται κατανοητή ἡ ἀνάγκη μιᾶς ἠθικῆς ἀξιολόγησης τῶν ἐπεμβάσεων αὐτῶν. Τί εἶναι ὅμως ἠθικά ὀρθό, ποιά εἶναι τά κριτήριά του; Πῶς μποροῦμε νά κρίνουμε, ἄν αὐτό πού καθιστᾶ ἡ ἐπιστήμη ἐφικτό εἶναι ὄντως χρήσιμο καί ὠφέλιμο γιά τόν ἄνθρωπο; Τά ἐρωτήματα αὐτά ἀπασχολοῦν σήμερα ἔντονα τίς ἐπιστῆμες καί τήν κοινωνία καί ἀποτελοῦν ἀντικείμενο ἑνός εὐρύτατου διεπιστημονικοῦ διαλόγου. Ὁ προβληματισμός αὐτός γιά τή βιοηθική ἀπασχόλησε καί τήν πρόσφατα πραγματοποιηθείσα Ἁγία καί Μεγάλη Σύνοδο τῆς Ὀρθοδόξου Ἐκκλησίας, ἡ ὁποία, μεταξύ ἄλλων, προέβαλε τίς ἠθικές ἀρχές τοῦ σεβασμοῦ στήν ἀξιοπρέπεια τοῦ ἀνθρώπου καί στή δημιουργία τοῦ Θεοῦ καί ἐπισήμανε τή σημασία μιᾶς ὀρθόδοξης βιοηθικῆς προσέγγισης.

Μιά τέτοια προσέγγιση ἐπιχειρεῖται στό παρόν ἔργο μέ τήν προσδοκία νά ἀναδείξει τόν ὀρθόδοξο ἠθικό προβληματισμό καί μέ τήν πεποίθηση ὅτι ἡ ὀρθόδοξη θεολογία μπορεῖ νά συμβάλει ἐποικοδομητικά στό σχετικό διεπιστημονικό διάλογο. Ἀπό τήν ἄποψη αὐτή ἐξετάζονται, μεταξύ ἄλλων, σημαντικά θέματα τῆς βιοηθικῆς, ὅπως εἶναι ἡ ἔκτρωση, οἱ διάφορες μέθοδοι ὑποβοηθούμενης ἀναπαραγωγῆς, ἡ κλωνοποίηση, τό AIDS καί ἡ εὐθανασία.

Given the advancements in technology today, a lot of things that were dimmed impossible a few years back have now been made possible, one of which is human cloning. While many people may argue that, human cloning will be a luxury afforded to only the people of affluence, hence It is not an important social or ethical issue. I believe it is an issue that needs to be addressed nonetheless. Something to consider is as technology becomes cheaper, it stands to reason that when human cloning finally is started and perfected, it could be afforded by the average person. This paper examines the ethical implications of making and using such technology;

The present article is an evaluation of human cloning from the perspective of the Christian ethics. Nowadays, the cloning of a human being is possible, but its morality remains a delicate issue. After a brief history of cloning, in general, the study
presents the arguments that the science brings forward, and the counter‑arguments of the ethicists, Christian or non‑Christian. The conclusion is that human cloning is
against the moral principles of the Bible; even the so‑called „therapeutic cloning“ is immoral, as it can be construed as playing God.

Just read it. Every word in this summarised document is true, and it contains the most important information to ever reach the internet. This document is written to empower the good people of the world against the tyranny which exists all around us in our world today. Effectively, the document presented here discloses concealed information regarding the extent to which medicine, science and technology has advanced in our current era. Moreover, the information disclosed here is presented with the express intent that it is made in the public interest and it meets all the criteria set out in section 43B (a-f) of the Public Interest Disclosure Act (PIDA) (UK) and the ‘public interest test’ -the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act (ERRA) 2013 section 17 (UK) which states that whistle blowing disclosures must be made in the public interest and should show one or more of the following-- [criminal offence, breach of legal obligation, etc].” Halliday (2013, p. 2). Furthermore, the Serious Crime Act 2015 (UK) section 41, 3ZA (which amends section 3A of the Computer Misuse Act 1990), states that it is a serious crime, punishable by imprisonment, a fine, or both, to cite hatred or spread hoaxes by use of a computer which would cause mass hysteria or public dissension.

From a legal perspective, the first questions the reader should ask are:

 If the Donald Marshall has been condemning public figures since 2011, why haven’t any of these public figures issued a public statement against him, or filed a law suit against him?
 It is against the law to cite hatred or spread hoaxes by use of a computer, especially, that which will cause mass hysteria and public outcry; so why hasn’t Donald Marshall been imprisoned, fined, or both?

The answers to these questions are very simple. It is because every word I have stated in my original letter since 2011 (Donald Marshall Proboards 2012), the full disclosure document (Marshall 2015), and this summarised document is true. Furthermore, the internet, and radio shows with small audiences, is the only form of communications which are not controlled. All forms of television networks, even including the Aboriginal People’s Television Network (APTN), are controlled. Therefore a message as important as this, will never reach the average man or woman through television. Consequently, the only viable options are to spread the whistle blowing disclosures through communications such as the internet and small radio shows.

Furthermore, I am a victim of current concealed advances in medicine, science and technology described below. There are many, many, other victims of abuse, including myself; therefore, it is our plea: that you read this document with an open mind, and you investigate ALL statements which may initially irk you, and appear ‘suspect’ to begin with (the circumstantial evidence is available all around you); keep in mind that the abuse described occurs due to hidden advancements in science, medicine and technology; because as a victim of abuse, I can honestly say, there is nothing worse than experiencing abuse, and those who have the power to protect you from your abusers, ignore you.

"Representations", N. 129, Winter 2015.

The essay analyzes the project of maintaining the body of V. I. Lenin in the Mausoleum in Moscow for the past ninety years, focusing on the unique biological science that developed around this project, and the unexpected political role this body has performed.

Foreword

What is a hurdle? By definition a “hurdle is a barrier which contestants must leap over, placed at certain intervals around a track to complete a race.” A “hurdle” can also be described as “a difficult problem to overcome; an obstacle”. On the one hand hurdles are not fun, because it means we have to overcome obstacles to complete a race which would have otherwise been somewhat straight forward without the hurdles in place. On the contrary, hurdles ensure that base level standards and competence are achieved before one can claim rights to authority, status, rights, privileges, credentials, credibility or the like. Consequently, it takes mental gumption, inner strength, determination, resilience and more to overcome hurdles; and as a direct result, we become much stronger people, for having the mental gumption, inner strength, determination, resilience and more to overcome the hurdles; the difficult problems and the obstacles in our path, before we finally reach our desired outcomes.

Human cloning and REM driven cloning is a reality and a fact of life. However, with the current hurdles in place, for which there are many hurdles; the hurdles prevent many people from reaching the desired outcome and realising simple truths which become GLARINGLY obvious once people decide to make the mental efforts to overcome their personal biases and blast through each level of “cognitive dissonance” and overcome each hurdle presented, until people reach the desired outcome to realise CONCLUSIVELY that human cloning and REM driven cloning is indeed a reality and a fact of life which MUST be stopped! It is my earnest plea that reader gives this document, as well as, ALL Mr. Donald Marshall’s disclosures the WEIGHT of importance they deserve. Blast through your cognitive dissonances, overcome your hurdles, and once you do, you will see the simple truth, laid out right in front of your very eyes, and right in front of your very nose which has been prevalent for many decades. Life references Mr. Donald Marshall’s disclosures, and Mr. Donald Marshall’s eyewitness testimonies references life. Such a feat only happens when a person tells the truth. Furthermore, the lies and deceptions are so BIG and so GRAND that the simple truth appears “crazy” on the surface, because the simple truth goes counter-clockwise to the many lies and deceptions which are orchestrated on a grand scale daily. However, the truth is the truth, and the truth MUST be known. Read, print, download and share this imperative information; it is imperative information which many, many human lives depend on.

Furthermore, REM driven cloning is the main topic which TRULY exposes humanity’s enemy: the Illuminati. Therefore, the smart and logical path to take is the path which will lead to the downfall of our enemy; and that path is to learn and fully understand the subject matter of “The Illuminati’s REM driven cloning subculture”. Leave nothing to chance or speculation; make sure you reach a point where you KNOW the truths discussed in this document IS a reality and a fact of life; and once you reach that stage, share Mr. Donald Marshall’s documents like wildfire. Humanity’s fate depends on you.

В статье в контексте биотехнологии и этики рассматриваются технология и перспективы клонирования человека. Анализируются этические стороны этой проблемы, а также выраженное посредством текстов культуры восприятие данной проблематики со стороны общества (является ли клон человеком, какое место в социуме ему выделяется и т.д.). Представлены основные аргументы за и против антропологического клонирования.

Just read it. Every word in this document is true, and it is the most important document to ever reach the internet. This document is written to empower good people of the world against the tyranny which exists all around us in our world today. Effectively, the document presented here discloses concealed information about the extent to which medicine, science, and technology has advanced in our current era. Moreover, I am disclosing this information because I have been extensively abused, and I am victim of current advances in medicine, science, and technology, which I describe in detail below. There are many, many, other victims of abuse, including myself, and therefore it is our plea that you read this document with an open mind and you investigate ALL statements which may initially irk you and appear ‘suspect’ to begin with (the circumstantial evidence is available all around you); because as a victim of abuse, I can honestly say, there is nothing worse than experiencing abuse, and those who have the power to protect you from your abusers, ignore you.

I will now discuss what qualifies as whistle blowing disclosure. After detailing the criteria which qualifies for whistle blowing disclosure, I will detail aspects of the Serious Crime Act, and preface a foundation which defines, explains, and references key information for the reader to understand as well as explore the extent to which medicine, science, and technology has advanced today; all for the express purpose of compelling the reader that medicine, science, and technology, has advanced at an incredible rate; that current advances in medicine, science and technology are withheld from public knowledge; and finally these advancements in medicine, science, and technology, have been and are currently used to commit serious unspeakable crimes against humanity and our environment here on earth. Moreover, it is my aim to present this information as coherently as possible to assist the reader to save me, and save many, many others who experience abuse daily resulting from concealed advances in technology.

Science Fiction authors are fascinated by the monstrous humanoids that their human characters create.  These creatures are, almost without exception, given artificially short life-spans (eg. Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep) or retain their lives only at the whim of their creators (eg. Never Let Me Go). But what makes the authors insist on this control?

In this paper I will examine the representation of unhuman characters in Karel Capek‘s play R.U.R. (Rossum’s Universal Robots) written in 1920 (which introduced the word ‘robot’) and Jenny Stevens’ radio play Jefferson 37, written as a special for BBC Radio 7.

Capek’s robots are made from artificially produced flesh and organs to be cheap workers for the world. Stevenson’s clones are grown using human umbilical cord from their originals in artificial womb sacks. The robot’s maximum life-span is twenty years before they wear out while the clones only function is to provide spare parts for their rich ‘originals’ and they are not legally human so they can be terminated at the will of the doctors. Both robots and clones are made monstrous by their dislocated similarity to humans.

Like Frankenstein, the creators in both plays are punished not for creating unhumans but for making them monsters through their inhuman treatment. Capek’s play prophesizes a posthuman reality when the robots kill all but one human on earth because ‘Slaughter and domination are necessary if you would be human beings. Read history.’ Stephenson’s play explores the impossibility of a docile humanoid.

But what do these monsters represent? I will argue that these authors are suggesting that a posthuman future is inevitable. If we must die out then the only way for humanity to cope is to ensure that that future will at least retain our shape. For, as Terry Pratchett suggests, ‘…if an intelligent creature takes a human shape it starts to think human. Form defines function.’ (The Time Thief) But facing the dominant species of the future makes humanity shudder, especially when it looks so like us.

Human cloning is one of the most hotly debated scientific issues of our time. Theorists have provided conflicting opinions in agreement and disagreement with this technology, such opinions often being based on differing ethical theories.

States have also adopted diverging approaches to this technology. Due to the global ramifications of human cloning, States have sought the conclusion of a global treaty for the regulation thereof. Although this has been possible within the regional setting of Europe, the global attempt at regulation has failed and simply resulted in the adoption of a weak resolution by the UN General Assembly. Although States were in agreement about the international system of human rights as being the general theory of ethics, guiding the discussions for regulation, the divergent interpretations provided by States on the rules and concepts of this system were such as to preclude the possibility of a meaningful agreement.

In this thesis, after critically reviewing the different positions on the ethical aspects of human cloning, the necessity of basing the international system of human rights as the general ethical theory for the international regulation of this technology is justified. Then, the relevant rules of the said system are reviewed and finally, an analysis of the core concepts of the international system of human rights as they relate to the subject at hand is provided in order to introduce the most compatible approach to human cloning with the international system of human rights.

Jürgen Habermas has strongly criticized some applications of biotechnology to human reproduction. In this paper I try to frame Habermas’ criticism to positive eugenics (i.e., the genetic enhancement of non-pathological traits and dispositions) and to reproductive cloning. According to Habermas, if these interventions on human life were scientifically possible, they would be threats to our sense of identity and responsibility and to mutual moral relationships. The only way to preserve the moral life is to consider inviolable the biological foundations of our existence. Finally, I shall try to highlight the weakness of habermasian arguments.

With regard to human cloning or artificial human reproduction – and contrary to the opinions of Sunni scholars - Shiite thinkers have not held a unified position. After having surveyed a number of Shiite fatwas and analyses on the subject, this essay will classify them into four groups. The first group states that we are granted absolute permission to engage in human cloning; while the second group believes that there is limited permission; the third group argues that cloning as such is primarily permitted but because of its consequences and secondary grounds it is prohibited and unlawful; and the fourth group is of the view that cloning as such and by itself is prohibited and unlawful. In what follows, the author has examined these four views, ending in support of the permission theory.

In Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice (2007) and an earlier article in this journal, “Defending Abortion Philosophically”(2006), Francis Beckwith argues that fetuses are, from conception, prima facie wrong to kill. His arguments are based on what he calls a “metaphysics of the human person” known as “The Substance View.” I argue that Beckwith’s metaphysics does not support his abortion ethic: Moral, not metaphysical, claims that are part of this Substance View are the foundation of the argument, and Beckwith inadequately defends these moral claims. Thus, Beckwith’s arguments do not provide strong support for what he calls the “pro-life” view of abortion.

Clone inaugurates a new kind of writing on the Indian continent.  A contemporary parable, it holds a dark mirror to the world.  Generically, it draws upon but refuses to be subsumed by science fiction of the dystopian variety. The protagonist, a 14th generation clone in 24th century India, struggles against imposed amnesia and sexual taboos in a species depleted world.  She hesitantly navigates through a world rendered unfamiliar by her expanding consciousness.  The prose is resonant, allusive, and at times reaches an incantatory, almost Vedic pitch.  The questions the author raises revolve around a shared humanity, the necessity of plurality of expression, the wonder of love and the splendour of difference.  The book adventurously forays into vastly different times, spaces, and consciousness whether animal, human or post human, to create an imaginative space for compassion in the midst of all the grotesquely. It is by means of this redemptive space that Chabria speaks of the horrors as well as resistance to it.

Background: While modern humans seek ways to extend life expectancy, the necessity of advanced bioengineering tools for the production of effective human enhancement applications appears as compelling as ever. Objective: The technological future of Homo sapiens has been scheduled within a quantum environment and advanced physical interventions are imperative to occur in the anatomy of modern humans, including genetic improvement and human cloning. New terminologies and latest projects such as genome editing, mind uploading and tissue engineering applications for the growth of new organs are issues of discussion in this paper. Methods: Several advanced biotechnological methods are presented in this paper, including the 14-days rule, the 2045 Initiative project and the CRISPR technique and their social and ethical implications are discussed. Results: The exponential aging of the population results in rapidly increasing demands for next-generation drugs and innovative pharmaceutical pr...

The prospect of creating children through somatic cell nuclear transfer has elicited widespread concern, much of it in the form of fears about harms to the children who may be born as a result. There are concerns about possible physical harms from the manipulations of ova, nuclei, and embryos, which are parts of the technology, and about possible psychological harms, such as a diminished sense of individuality and personal autonomy. There are ethical concerns as well about a degradation of the quality of parenting and family life if parents are tempted to seek excessive control over their children's characteristics, to value children according to how well they meet overly detailed parental expectations, and to undermine the acceptance and openness that typify loving families. Virtually all people agree that the current risks of physical harm to children associated with somatic cell nuclear transplantation cloning might justify a prohibition at this time on such experimentation[i]. In addition to physical harms, many worry about psychological harms associated with such cloning. One of the forms of psychological harm most frequently mentioned is the possible loss of a sense of uniqueness. Although the myth of genetic determinism is dispelled, but some doubts about cloning and identity remain that I am going to argue that somatic cell nuclear transfer cloning creates serious issues of identity and individuality especially in the Psychological identity and forces us to reconsider how we define ourselves because Cloned children each will be genetically virtually identical to a human being who has already lived and also the expectations for their lives may be shadowed by constant comparisons to the life of the “original.

This essay discusses the clone narrator of Ishiguro's novel "Never Let Me Go," and discusses the narrative perspective in the context of early literary genres and institutions of education that foreground the notion of resistance against oppression and the objectification of humans.

An influential argument in bioethics involves appeal to disgust, calling on us to take it seriously as a moral guide (e.g. Kass, Miller, Kahan). Some argue, for example, that genetic enhancement, especially via human reproductive cloning, is repellant or grotesque. While objectors have argued that repugnance is morally irrelevant (e.g. Nussbaum, Kelly), I argue that the problem is more fundamental: it is psychologically irrelevant. Examining recent empirical data suggests that disgust's influence on moral judgment may be like fatigue: an exogenous influence, yielding a " performance error " that does not reflect our understanding of moral matters. This conclusion also challenges appeals to repugnance on other topics (such as homosexuality) and generally downplays the importance of disgust in moral discourse.

Drawing upon qualitative interviews with monozygotic (identical) twins sharing 100% of their genes, and with dizygotic (fraternal) twins and singletons as control groups, this paper explores what it means to be genetically identical. (The twins interviewed were from the TwinsUK register in London.) In the context of the ongoing debate on human reproductive cloning, it examines questions such as: To what extent do identical twins perceive their emotional and physical bond to be a result of their genetic makeup? What would they think if they had been deliberately created genetically identical? How would they feel about being genetically identical to a person who was born a few years earlier or later? First, our respondents ascribed no great significance to the role of genes in their understanding of what it means to be identical twins. Second, the opinion that human reproductive cloning would "interfere with nature", or "contradict God's will", was expressed by our respondents exclusively on the abstract level. The more our respondents were able to relate a particular invented cloning scenario to their own life-worlds, the lower the prevalence of the argument. Third, for all three groups of respondents, the scenario of having been born in one of the other groups was perceived as strange. Fourth, the aspect that our respondents disliked about cloning scenarios was the potential motives of the cloners. Without equating monozygotic twins directly with "clones", these results from "naturally" genetically identical individuals add a new dimension to what a future cloning situation could entail: The cloned person might possibly (a) perceive a close physical and emotional connection to the progenitor as a blessing; (b) suffer from preconceptions of people who regard physical likeness as a sign of incomplete individuality; and (c) perceive the idea of not having been born a clone of a particular person as unpleasant.

Jürgen Habermas has strongly criticized some applications of biotechnology to human reproduction. In this paper I try to frame Habermas’ criticism to positive eugenics (i.e., the genetic enhancement of non-pathological traits and dispositions) and to reproductive cloning. According to Habermas, if these interventions on human life were scientifically possible, they would be threats to our sense of identity and responsibility and to mutual moral relationships. The only way to preserve the moral life is to consider inviolable the biological foundations of our existence. Finally, I shall try to highlight the weakness of habermasian arguments.

Muestra un archivo XML con los metadatos del artículo basados en el formato que maneja OAI - PMH (open archives initiative - Protocol for Metadata Harvesting) facilitando así la diseminación eficiente del contenido. ... Román Collazo, Carlos AlbertoHernández Rodríguez, Yenima; ...

Οι πρόσφατες εξελίξεις στον τομέα της κλωνοποίησης, με την επιτυχή δημιουργία κλώνων πρωτευόντων θηλαστικών (πιθήκων), έχουν αναζωπυρώσει το ενδιαφέρον της επιστημονικής κοινότητας, προκαλώντας έντονες συζητήσεις σχετικά με την κλωνοποίηση ενός άλλου είδους πρωτεύοντος, του ανθρώπου. Και εάν η «θεραπευτική κλωνοποίηση», με την έννοια της δημιουργίας πρόωρων εμβρύων-κλώνων για την παραγωγή βλαστικών κυττάρων για θεραπευτικούς σκοπούς, γίνεται μάλλον αποδεκτή, δεν θα μπορούσε να θεωρηθεί ότι συμβαίνει το ίδιο με την «αναπαραγωγική», που στόχο έχει την αναπαραγωγή γενετικά όμοιων αυτοτελών όντων. Οι προβληματισμοί και τα ερωτήματα που προκύπτουν αφορούν στα όρια του επιτρεπτού της έρευνας της κλωνοποίησης και ειδικότερα, στο τι ακριβώς προστατεύεται κατά την τυποποίηση της αναπαραγωγικής κλωνοποίησης ως αξιόποινης πράξης. Το παρόν δοκίμιο επιχειρεί να αναλύσει τα νομικά και ηθικά ζητήματα της αναπαραγωγικής και θεραπευτικής κλωνοποίησης και να αναζητήσει τα νομικά όρια που θέτουν οι κανόνες του διεθνούς και εσωτερικού δικαίου.