Your complimentary articles

You’ve read all of your complimentary articles for this month. To have complete access to the thousands of philosophy articles on this site, please

SUBSCRIBE NOW

If you are a subscriber please sign in to your account.

To buy or renew a subscription please visit Subscriptions.

If you are a print subscriber you can contact us to create an online account.

The Issues

Carbon Copies

Neill Furr examines the various arguments against human cloning and finds them all flawed. He says we should proceed with caution, but doesn’t think cloning should be banned.

As I write this, at least three human clones have been claimed to be born. Already the claims have been variously dismissed and almost universally condemned. But what is wrong with cloning? Why should the world’s leaders be calling for bans and moratoriums? Why have the papers been full of moral disgust?

To begin we should distinguish between two types of cloning: reproductive and non-reproductive. Most of the moral objections to this kind of research have been targeted at reproductive cloning but both have come under the moral spotlight and there is the risk of both being banned in the US.

With non-reproductive cloning the aim is not to create a baby but a source of useful stem cells, an end achieved by allowing cell division until there is a small ball of about one hundred cells called a blastocyst.

…