The first contempory issue strengthened my original principles. My prinicples, similar to Locke's about natural rights, actually made the cloning issue a little fuzzy. How can give rights to someone who wasn't born and it 100% of you? Are they property? Eventually I had to back to nature. There are natural clones exsisting now--identical twins! Do are they own each other? Is there some type of test that determines which was the original and which was the clone? No! They're seperate people firmly deserveing equal rights. Now that does mean I'm in support of cloning anyone--I'm not. However, the implications made in class about the use of clones as organ donors I think is unethical. We can't treat human beings as bags of organs nor is it perimissible under today's law to experiment in such a way on humans.
I believe Kass's argument pulled the most weight with me. Losing the family dynamic, incestuous nightmares, and the utter repugnace he speeks of about all of that was enough to win me over.
No comments:
Post a Comment