the moral issue of human cloning

0.1 Introduction

Life is full of possibilities and surprises, humanity is unfolding and who knows what lies ahead. The idea that humans might someday be cloned[1] is something that had been held as science fiction, more of a fairy tale. But on February 22, 1997, the incomprehensible science fiction graduated from being a fiction to a full blown scientific possibility. It was on this day that the team of Scottish scientist led by Dr Ian Wilmut, announced the birth of the world’s first successfully cloned mammal, Dolly the sheep. Based on the moral implication on the obvious impending human cloning, the people decried for such outcome. In response to that, Dr Wilmut described human cloning as both repugnant and illegal.[2] This marked a great milestone in science and also in our ability to control, refine and amplify the forces of nature.

The surge in humanity to control nature dates ab initio. In particular, domesticated plants and animals have the mainstay of agricultural heritage. Over time, it become a fact that human has reached a certain extent of mastery over nature. Although these did not go without the criticisms of those who considered it to be an affront to the natural order of things or by others of religious affinity who considered it to be at odds with interpretations of God’s revealed word. This issue of our growing scientific and technological advancement is filled with moral dilemmas and ambiguity, capable of tremendous influx of progress in civilization and also ensuing catastrophic evil in the human race.

There have been serious concern about the progress in science and technology. A serious concern about this advances is mainly anchored on the idea of morality and limits. Is it possible to find a moral compass to limit our desire and cravings to master the universe and all therein? In recent times this concern is becoming acute in relation to the new moral choices created by the stunning developments in the biomedical sciences, particularly in the area of human reproduction. Even though the issue of personal reproductive health is considered to be, in most cases, a private matter, ongoing controversies concerning the moral standing of human genetic materials and human interventions in procreation have alerted public attention on the ethical and legal implications of new reproductive techniques. There have been cases in the past which considered some medical practices to be obscene, immoral and illegal, but today they have acquire a new dimension and consideration in the society. Take for instance, the case of artificial insemination[3] which was considered a form of adultery when it was first introduced in the 1940s. If we are not mistaking, it is now the widely acceptance method in the treatment of sterility.[4] The birth of Louis Brown, conceived via in vitro fertilization, in 1978 was another milestone in the medical milieu, which provided a new and controversial means to parenthood.[5]  

With all these rise and advancement in biomedicine and technology, there have been continuing debate about the safety, legality and ethical acceptability, and the government’s right in private matters. Genetic and reproductive technologies are also not left out in this public pruning and moral assessment. But there is great need for a better understanding of human biology and the prospect of combating currently combating afflictions that seem incurable; it calls for more study and guarded statements about the need for some measure of control. Therefore in this essay, we shall be focusing our intellectual compass on the moral issue of human cloning using Kant’s categorical imperative as a yardstick. By way of methodology, we shall first make some brief exposition of Kant’s categorical imperative and some concepts we shall be employing in the course of this essay. Afterwards, we shall have an insight into what human cloning means and juxtaposing it with the concept of genetic determinism. These things shall be clear when we start to explain them as we go further. It is then after these foundations must have been solidly laid that we shall start looking at the moral implication of human cloning from the perspective of Kantian categorical imperative.

Kantian Categorical Imperative

The term “categorical imperative is the term used by Kant for “Moral Law”. Before we talk about his categorical imperative let us take a general look at his moral theory. Immanuel Kant defines moral goodness in terms of goodwill. For him, goodwill is good in itself and is always good without limitation.[6] This goes far to mean that goodness is the only one thing that is good without qualification. Although there are other things that can be considered to be good but they are not unconditionally good since their goodness can be turned to bad when misused. We can say that intelligence is good but this can also be bad when misused, for instance using it to plan to a robbery in the bank. Hence goodwill is a will which acts for the sake of duty.[7]

This idea of the will acting for the sake of duty comes from the notion that Kant believes that it is the will that guides us in the performance of our duty. In other to address a question that seem to boil in the mind of people about the assurance of the existence or reality of goodwill, Kant quickly answers that consciousness of duty is the evidence of the existence of goodwill.[8] Goodwill is good on the sole reason that it acts for the sake of duty; duty which is conceived by Kant as the necessity for acting out of reverence for the moral law.[9] For instance if a person decides to donate one his kidney to gain reputation or money because of mere desire to reduce his suffering only, is not acting for the sake of duty, hence his action cannot be said to be in conformity with the moral law. But if he do this because he sees it as a duty to so, Kant will conclude that the action conforms to moral law and therefore morally right.[10]

Kant distinguishes between two types of duties: “acting for the sake of duty” and “acting according to duty”. The former he regards as perfect duty while the latter he regards as imperfect duty. A perfect duty is the one we should always observe while the imperfect duty is the one we should always observe in some occasions. We may say this; I have a perfect duty not to kill but I have an imperfect duty to show kindness or sympathy on another person. Even though I should show sympathy or love but the people and when I show it are my subjective affair.[11] To act for the sake of duty is to act not because one sees a benefit that accrues from the action, not because one feels like doing so, or because one is inclined naturally to doing such an act but because it comes purely out of reverence of the moral law.[12] Hence we talk about doing something for the sake of duty, we mean to do a work or perform an action because of reverence to the moral law, knowing fully well that the moral law demands of it and we have a duty to comply. According to Kant, to act according to duty is to act out of prudent considerations of one’s interest.[13] Any action out of the consideration of the moral law or does not appeal to its law, according to Kant, is not to be considered bad but have no moral value.[14]

In order to ascertain which action is right and which one is wrong, Kant posits a yardstick for distinguishing right from wrong actions. He employs the principle of universalization. If one wants to know the morality of the action one wants to perform, one should look at the underlying principle (i.e the maxim) of the action and universalize it. Therefore he gave one of his categorical imperative viz; “Act only on the maxim which you can will to be a universal law.”[15] In order to interpret this principle, we may say that for one to checkmate the morality of any action one intends to take, one should first consider if it can be made a universal norm, in the sense that, everyone will act in the same way if they are faced with simple circumstance as one. For instance, when one desires to take somebody’s money because one wants to buy food and satisfy one’s hunger, one should consider the action to be a universal norm so that whenever someone is hungry, one can go and steal money from anyone. A critical consideration of such action cannot motivate one to consider such an action as worthy of a universal norm because one can also suffer from theft if one were to steal the money belonging to the person who made the norm.

This can be applied in the medical field, in this case, in human cloning. One advantages of this principle of universalization is that it encourages the furtherance of mutual relationship between the physician and his patients. The principle when applied properly in the medical field will discourage doctors and scientists from formulation maxims that would amount to breaching the principle of veracity and mutual trust they have sworn to uphold in their professional oath.

The second formulation of Kant’s categorical imperative is that, “we should always act so as to treat humanity, either yourself or others, always as ends and never only as means”[16] this maxim discourages exploitation, in other words, we should treat people as rational creatures and valuable entities in and of themselves. We should never assume people to be a commodity, a mere means but should cherish them with dignity and respect. It is the belief of Kant that every rational creature possesses an autonomy of legislative will. The rationality conferred on all rational creatures enables them to make rules for themselves, direct their action and consider the consequences of their actions. This rationality confers on everyone an intrinsic worth and dignity as self-conscious persons. According to Kant, for all of morality, the ultimate appeal is to rationality with special confirmation by the categorical imperative.[17] This may seem an indirect way of asserting that the rational nature of human being is the basis for morality.

What is Human Cloning?

From the discussion so far it will be easy for one to make an arbitrary definition of human cloning. But that notwithstanding, human cloning is a process that involves the creation of a genetically identical copy of an already existing, or previously existing human being or growing clone tissue from that individual.[18] This particular aspect of cloning is basically our major concern (cloning of human being), because of its verse ethical implications. Talking about human cloning, the method employed in this disturbing project is known as nuclear transfer. By this, we mean that in the process of cloning, the nucleus of a mature but unfertilized egg is removed by microsurgery or irradiation and replaced by the nucleus of a specialized body cell of an adult. The introduction of this nucleus into the egg cell a complete number of forty-six chromosomes, which as we may know, is natural brought about during ejaculation. This give rise to the twenty-three chromosomes of the egg cell and twenty-three chromosomes of the sperm cell. After this process, the egg cell will start to go through mitosis which will lead the genetic technicians to remove it and implant it in the uterus of a healthy surrogate mother or to the women from which the egg came from, after which incubation follows.[19]   

It is imperative to note here that fertilization is carried out in vitro. When the selected embryo has developed 8-10 cells, during after which it is separated into two or three parts.[20] The surrogate woman after this process will be allow to carry the “specimen” in her womb for the natural nine month of gestation and thereafter give birth to two or more impeccably identical twins, triplets or more as the case may be.

The very first attempt on cloning human was in October 1993, when Jerry Hall and Robert Stillman at the George Washington Medical Centre cloned human embryo by splitting two to eight cells embryos into single cells.[21] Although the processed he used does not seem new since the method has already been in use for the cloning of animal embryo, it raise a lot of ethical issues and opened a canal of a range of practical and ethical questions. One of the problematic question that was raised is such that since human embryos can be frozen and used at a later date, parents could decide to have a baby and then years later, clone the frozen embryo to give birth to an identical twin, possibly as organ donor for the older child.[22]

Although so many objective and refuted this assumed progress in science but others applaud it and saw the advantage to continue in such experiment. Those who strongly advocated for its advance gave some reasons for the justification of the position. Dr Robert Stillman, who happened to be the director of the vitro fertilization program was very much aware of the ethical issues that will accrue from the experiment. Thus in an interview, he gave his reason for such experiment, hinting that it is solely to help infertile couples who have just basic desire to have a family.[23] Others who propagate the continuation of this experiment opines that it will help in providing the exact genetic copy of the healthy, the genius, the beautiful; providing children to childless couples; helping in the selection and ascertaining the sex of a baby; provision of sources for organ transplantation, building up of very strong military forces as well as genetic improvement of human species.[24]

Cloning, which is the creation of organisms with an identical set of genes, occurs naturally in humans in the case of identical twins. It should be noted hence that cloning does not produce identical copies of the same individual person. It can only produce identical copies of the same genotype as it obtained in identical twins, where each is different individual.[25] We are quite aware that what makes an individual is more than genetic make-ups. We come from particular historical era, special environment, with so many intrinsic uniqueness and experience, and therefore a duplicate individual can never be created.[26] There are other consequences that may accrue from this experiment especially in our Nigerian situation where there is a high preference of male child. The problem will be that there will be an unbalanced sex ratio in many countries. Many parents would opt for male babies to be in queue with the social values of inheritance and to the continuation of progeny. This will eventually lead to lesser women in the society, their extinction and to the eventual sex related crimes in the society.[27]

Humans Cloning and Religion: A historical Overview

One very important widespread religious beliefs is that man is created in the image of God. This has enormous implications for human dignity especially for Christians. There is an equal dignity, regardless of our social status, which every human being possess because of our capacity for moral choice, free will and choice. This is a natural endowment which we received from God and hence a gross violation of God’s will to reproduce with the help of cloning. Pope St. John Paul II has condemned the cloning of human embryos and cautioned scientists to respect the dignity of the human person. In his address in an international scientific meeting in Rome in August 200, he asserts, “Every medical procedure performed on the human person is subject to limits: not just the limits of what is technically possible, but also limits determined by respect for human nature itself … what is technically possible is not for that reason alone morally admissible”[28]

There is a somewhat scientists-religious war that has been going for years. It is possible for us to identify four recent overlapping periods in which theologians and other religious thinkers have considered the scientific prospects and ethics of the cloning of humans. The first phase, which began in the mid-1960a and continued into the early 1970s, was characterised by a context of expanded choices and control of reproduction (example, the availability of the birth control pill), the prospects of alternatives, technologically-assisted reproduction (example, n vitro fertilization IVF), and the advocacy by some biologists and scientists of cloning preferred genotypes, which in their view would involve overloading the human gene pool with genes that are linked to deleterious outcomes and that could place the survival of the human specie at risk. Several theologians engaged in these initial discussions of human genetic manipulation and cloning, including people like Charles Curan, Bernard Haring, Richard McCormick and Karl Rahner within Roman Catholicism and Joseph Fletcher and Paul Ramsey within Protestantism. The dramatically opposed positions staked out by the last two theologians gave an early signal of the wide range of views that are still expressed by religious thinkers.[29]

Joseph Fletcher advocated expansion of human freedom and control over human reproduction. He portrayed human cloning as one of many present and prospective reproductive options that could be ethically justified by societal benefit.[30] Indeed for Fletcher, as a method of reproduction, cloning was preferred to the “genetic roulette” of sexual reproduction. He viewed laboratory reproduction as “radically human” because it is deliberate, designed, designated, chosen and willed.[31]

By disparity, Paul Ramsey depicted the cloning of human as a moral boundary that could be crossed only at risk of compromise to humanity and to basic concepts of human procreation.[32] According to him, this cloning of human can be portrayed as “borderline” in the sense that it threatens what he calls three “horizontal” (person-person) and two “vertical” (person-God) border crossings. First for the scientific ends of a controlled gene pool to be properly served, the clonal reproduction would require directed or managed breeding. Second, it would involve non-therapeutic experimentation of the unborn. Third, it will bring an assault on the whole concept of parenthood by transforming procreation into reproduction and by severing the unitive end (expressing and sustaining love) and the end of human sexual expression which end is procreation. Fourth, this would express the sin of pride or hubris. Fifth, it could also be seen from the angle of a challenge to God in the sense that man aspires to be creator. [33]

Another distinctive era, which is the second began in 1978, which we can identify two notable events; first IVF baby, Louis Brown and the publication of David Rorvik’s In His Image, a book that accounts for the creation of the first human clone.[34] This period did not only entertain the contribution of the Christian theologian but also the Jewish scholars such as Seymour Siegel and Fred Rosner who were neither as supportive as Fletcher nor indicting as Ramsey. But they asked for a more extensive evaluation of the issue within the Jewish community. This is also the period the church formally involved herself with questions of genetic manipulation. The Protestant Christian body produced a study booklet on “Genetic Manipulation” that provides a general overview of the science and ethics of human cloning, while shying away from rendering any theological verdict. Although the Protestant-organized bodies, like the World Council of Churches, issued resolutions giving cautious endorsement to genetic D-5 intervention for therapeutic purposes. Also, President Jimmy Carter was urged to request for an examination of the scientific ethical and social issue of gene splitting due to what influenced by the concerns expressed in 1979 by Jewish, Protestant and Roman Catholic leaders about genetic engineering.[35]

The third era of religious discussion was ushered in with the blastomere separation of human embryos at George Washington University in 1993.[36] This saw a rigorous opposition from the side of the Catholic theologians, seeing it as “intrinsically perverse” and so they invoked norms of individuality, dignity and wholeness to assess the ethics of such study.[37] But regardless of this, other Protestant scholars saw potential medical benefits from the research and advocated regulation rather than prohibition.

The most recent era of this discussion emerged in the wake of the successful cloning of “Dolly” by Scottish researchers. This was not also positively accepted by the Catholic Church and conservative Protestants and so reiterated past position and warnings. A vehement attach was made by the protestant theologian Allen Verhey in his essay published in The Christian Century. He argued against such manipulation of nature and concluded that an account of the good life in a family is “inhospitable to cloning”.[38] In the preceding chapter we shall be clarified on the stance of Kant in this ethical issue by implying his ethical theory (that is, categorical imperative) in the case at hand.

Implications from Kant’s categorical Imperative

If we look at the background of Immanuel Kant we shall understand that he is coming from a religious background. And so one may be tempted to presume his stance in this case, but we are not using his religiosity as a yardstick to measure the morality of human cloning rather his categorical imperative which, according to him comes from appealing to reason alone.

In a little essay by Kant titled Conjectures on the Beginning of Human History, he traced the human history from that of a creature governed by animal instincts and emotion to a rational and moral being. Kant understands human evolution from a teleological perspective, and this movement from mere instinctive animals to rational animals has led the species to become “human” beings. Governed by reason and capable of rational faculty, the human desires (love, aesthetic admiration of art etc.) become more developed in the human species. This endowment and transformation is completed with morality, the logical final end and highest culmination of man’s progress.[39] Since Kant considers this human progress from a teleological perspective, the capacity of reasoning in the human species is the beacon that lights the paths away where man cannot go back to its’ former bestial state of survival governed by animal instinct. Human nature comes to the awareness of equality of all human being. Kant argues that if morality is the ultimate end in the development of the rational nature of human beings, it is because as a subject of morality, it is given only to the human species alone to be a final purpose to which nature is teleologically subordinated.[40] Therefore, if such be the case, human beings should never solely be treated as a means but always as an end or end in itself. Kant is arguing here that we should never treat persons or their humanity as aims or goal rather as an end. The end as such has a higher meaning which somewhat typifies the transcendent nature of man above other created entities. A violation of this imperative will be a gross injustice not just to the person directly affected but to the entire humanity. Kant believe that morality can be summarised in one ultimate principle from which all other duties and obligations are derived. He regards this as the categorical imperative: “Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law.”[41] There is also another formulation of the categorical imperative given by Kant: a given action is morally correct if when performing that action we do not use people as a means to achieve some further benefit, but instead treat people as something which is intrinsically valuable. He called this formulation The Formula of the End Itself:  “Act that you use humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means.”[42]

Milne saw the positive side of Kant’s categorical imperatives and asserts that it (the positive side) is not its opposite rather a corollary. When we consider human being not to be treated as mere means but always as ends, then there must be certain ways in which they must be treated and ways in which they must not be treated. This corollary must be applicable and applies to all affairs and interactions between human beings in oneself (if humanity is to mean existing in oneself) or fellow human beings is to be respected and treated as an end.[43] What she categorical mean here is that the inference of this positive side of Kant’s categorical imperative implies necessarily, as indispensably and inevitably, the application of contemporary ideas of human rights in all interactions between human beings because they always emerge in a social context.[44]

One of the major reason why the Kantian categorical imperative cannot support or give a moral backing to human cloning is based on Kant’s concept of human being as having an intrinsic value and dignity. His idea of human being as end in themselves is because of the relation between human autonomy and self-government.  In his philosophy, human dignity is a basic moral principle. Because of the human capacity for losing and acquiring, the protection of dignity becomes a great moral requirement. Dignity is thus a characteristic moral feature of all human beings and it is in this sense human dignity underlies the principal employment of the concept of dignity as a moral ideal. If we take time to strip persons of characteristics such as skin colour, cultural background, social class and wealth, there must still remain in the person the essential human quality that is worthy of a certain minimal level of respect. Cloning of a human being is in no way justifiable if we are to apply the categorical imperative to evaluate it.

The most obvious critique some may level against this position may come from the idea that the egg and sperm are not humans and so do not qualify to any form or attribute of dignity and should be used for any means. This argument in as much as it seem tenable cannot hold water since the very fact of cloning is to have human being, that is, to alter the natural means of begetting a human being and subjecting it to mere laboratory experiment. Every action taken to alter the means of procreation must be a direct infringement on the human person to whom they will produce afterward. There is a king of stigmata attached to the fact that one is seen as a laboratory experiment or a natural abnormality. The aftermath of the cloning and the intention of the scientists who engage in the cloning experiment is also to be considered. For instance, the idea of using cloned human beings for battle and war as is most known to be the tactics of the Americans is a gross violation of this Kantian impetrative. They are obviously using humanity, not just the cloned but the species of humanity as means to win wars. There is equality in humanity and so no one has the right to determine the destiny of anybody, not to talk of making them weapons of warfare for their own selfish gratifications. This is gross inhumanity!

Conclusion

If humanity is a concept every human being shares, and it has an intrinsic dignity which makes the sharers one, then every human person sharing in this dignity should be respected and considered specifically equal and worthy of every respect accruable to a human person. We are complex whole impossible to be partitioned into parts. Looking at most of the reasons the advocates of human cloning are bringing in support of it, there is only one simple conclusion to their argument; the effect that will accrue from the development of human cloning is that it will lead to a mere gratification of utilitarian purposes. Their engagement is to try to de-complexify humanity by attempting to reduce the complex diversity of natural ends and purposes to just few simple categories like pleasure and anger. When we consider the general human desire like relief of pain and suffering and the ultimate goal of happiness in line with the whole idea of human cloning, it appears that human cloning will imply: we can save lives by creating possibilities for transplantations or we can circumvent infertility, at the expense of some ineffable human quality like genius or ambition.[45]

This paper has gone through its various sections to highlight succinctly the intended aim of this essay. Besides we have taken a deep insight into the categorical imperative of Immanuel Kant in order to make a moral evaluation of the ethical issue of human cloning. Indeed human cloning may be alien to the African mind but the issue cannot be neglected by Africans in the sense that an evil done to humanity somewhere is an evil done to humanity everywhere. Going through the pages of the essay one can observe that we have employed and appealed a lot to Kant’s categorical imperative, this is not to say that Kant is the only moral philosopher or we prefer his postulations more than others but for the sake of this paper we have particularly taken his moral teachings to guide us in this ethical evaluation.

Bibliography

Black, Jay & Roberts, Chris. Doing Ethics in Media: Theories and Practical Applications. New York: Routledge, 2011.

“Cloning Human Beings: Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission, Vol. 2,” In United States. National Bioethics Advisory Commission. USA: Indiana University, 1997.

d’Aulaire, P. O. “Clones: Will there be “carbon copy” People?” In “Readers Digest,” Nov. 1979.

Ekennia, Justine N. Bio-Medical Ethics: Issues, Trend & Problems. Owerri: Jane D, Press, 2003.

Fletcher, Joseph. The Ethics of Genital Control. New York: Anchor Press, 1974.

Frierson, Patrick R. Freedom and Anthropology in Kant's Moral Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals edited by Christoph Horn, Dieter Schönecker. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co, 1998.

Hammes, J. A. “Psychological, Philosophical and Moral Aspect of Biogenic Engineering,” In Communio, 1978.

Johansson Mattias, “The Human Cloning Era on the Doorstep to our Posthuman Future” - Master´s Thesis in Applied Ethics. Centre for Applied Ethics Linköping University, 2003.

 Johnson, Oliver & Reath, Andrews. “Foundation of Metaphysics of Morals” In Ethics: Selections from Classic and Contemporary Writers 11^th Edition. Australia: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2012.

Kant, Immanuel. Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals ed. Christoph Horn. Germany: Die Deusche Bibliothek, 2006.

­­­­_____________. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, translated by Paton, H.J. (New York: Harper Collins, 1964.

McCormick, R.A. “Blastomere separation: Some concerns,” Hastings Centre Report, 24(2):14-16, 199.

Milne, A.J.M. Human Rights and Human Diversity: An Essay in the Philosophy of Human Rights. New York: University of New York Press, 1986.

Munson, Ronald. Intervention and Reflection: Basic Issues in Bioethics, Concise Edition. Australia: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2014.

Omoregbe, Joseph. Ethics: A Systematic and Historical Study 3^rd edition. Lagos: Joja Educational Research and Publishers Ltd., 1996.

Popkin R. H. & Stroll, A. Philosophy Made Simple. London: W. H Allen, 1969.

Sullivan, Roger J. Immanuel Kant's Moral Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.

Rorvic, D.M. In His Image: The Cloning of a Man. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Company, 1978.

Shannon, T.A. “Cloning, uniqueness, and individuality,” Louvain Studies,

19:283-306, 1994.

Shaw, David. Genetic Morality. Berlin, Peter Lang AG: International Academic Publishers, 2006.

Søren, Holm. The Future of Human Reproduction: Ethics, Choice, and Regulation. Oxford: Claendon Press, 1998.

Swanson, Kara W. “Adultery by Doctor: Artificial Insemination,” In Women's Legal History: A Global Perspective Volume 87.

Uduigwomen A. F. Contemporary Issues & Problems in Biomedical Ethics. Calabar: Vision Connection Publication.

Verhey, A.D. “Theology after Dolly,” The Christian Century, March 19-26, 1997.

Online Materials

Campbell, Courtney S. “Cloning Human Beings: Religious Perspectives on Human Cloning,” (Online), URL: https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/nbac/pubs/cloning2/cc4.pdf.  

“Pope Says Human Cloning is Morally Unacceptable”, (Online), URL:

http://www.mercola.com/2000/sept/17/pope_cloning.htm, June 7, 2003.

“Human Cloning,” http://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/human_cloning.htm. Accessed: 07-01-2016.

https://publications.lib.chalmers.se/records/fulltext/170547/170547.pdf. Accessed: 10-01-2016.  

http://www.californiaivf.com/Glossary.htm. Accessed: 12-01-2016.

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/10/24/us/scientist-clones-human-embryos-and-creates-an-ethical-challenge.html. Accessed: 07-01-2016.

“Human Cloning and Human Dignity: An Ethical Inquiry.” Online (URL), https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcbe/reports/cloningreport/children.html. Accessed: 12-01-2016.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/22/newsid_4245000/4245877.stm. Accessed: 29-11-2015.

Manganaro Christine L.  “Louise Brown: First person conceived using in vitro fertilization.” http://www.britannica.com/biography/Louise-Brown. Accessed: 04-12-2015.

Philosophy 302: Ethics Immanuel Kant, "Act In Accordance with Universal Law". http://philosophy.lander.edu/ethics/notes-kant.html. Accessed: 11-01-2016.

http://www.uri.edu/personal/szunjic/philos/grwork.htm. Accessed 12-01-2016.

http://www2.fiu.edu/~harrisk/Notes/Ethics/KANT.htm. Accessed: 12-01-2016.

---

[1] Creation from a single somatic cell without sexual reproduction.

[2] http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/22/newsid_4245000/4245877.stm. Accessed: 29-11-2015.

[3] Artificial insemination is the use of instruments to deposit semen in a woman's reproductive tract, either at the cervix or within the uterus, a technique sometimes described as giving sperm a three-inch boost on a six-inch journey.

[4] Cf. Kara W. Swanson “Adultery by Doctor: Artificial Insemination,” In Women's Legal History: A Global Perspective Volume 87, p. 592.

[5] Cf. Christine L. Manganaro “Louise Brown: First person conceived using in vitro fertilization.” http://www.britannica.com/biography/Louise-Brown. Accessed: 04-12-2015.

[6] Cf. Immanuel Kant, Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals ed. Christoph Horn, (Germany: Die Deusche Bibliothek, 2006), p.132.

[7] Cf. Philosophy 302: Ethics Immanuel Kant, "Act In Accordance with Universal Law". http://philosophy.lander.edu/ethics/notes-kant.html. Accessed: 11-01-2016.

[8] Cf. http://www.uri.edu/personal/szunjic/philos/grwork.htm. Accessed 12-01-2016.

[9] Cf. Oliver Johnson, Andrews Reath, “Foundation of Metaphysics of Morals” In Ethics: Selections from Classic and Contemporary Writers 11^th Edition (Australia: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2012), p. 191.

[10] Cf. Uduigwomen A. F. Contemporary Issues & Problems in Biomedical Ethics (Calabar: Vision Connection Publication), p. 41.

[11] Cf. Ronald Munson, Intervention and Reflection: Basic Issues in Bioethics, Concise Edition (Australia: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2014), p. 481.

[12] Cf. Joseph Omoregbe, Ethics: A Systematic and Historical Study 3^rd edition (Lagos: Joja Educational Research and Publishers Ltd., 1996), p. 156.

[13] Cf. R. H. Popkin & A. Stroll., Philosophy Made Simple (London: W. H Allen, 1969), p. 42.

[14] Cf. http://www2.fiu.edu/~harrisk/Notes/Ethics/KANT.htm. Accessed: 12-01-2016.

[15] Roger J. Sullivan, Immanuel Kant's Moral Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), p. 346.

[16] Jay Black, Chris Roberts, Doing Ethics in Media: Theories and Practical Applications (New York: Routledge, 2011), p. 350.

[17] Cf. Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals edited by Christoph Horn, Dieter Schönecker (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co), p. 193.

[18] Cf. “Human Cloning,” http://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/human_cloning.htm. Accessed: 07-01-2016.

[19] Cf. http://www.californiaivf.com/Glossary.htm. Accessed: 12-01-2016.

[20] Cf. Justine N. Ekennia , Bio-Medical Ethics: Issues, Trend & Problems (Owerri: Jane D, Press, 2003), p. 112.

[21] Cf. http://www.nytimes.com/1993/10/24/us/scientist-clones-human-embryos-and-creates-an-ethical-challenge.html. Accessed: 07-01-2016.

[22] Cf. http://www.nytimes.com/1993/10/24/us/scientist-clones-human-embryos-and-creates-an-ethical-challenge.html. Accessed: 07-01-2016.

[23] Cf. http://www.nytimes.com/1993/10/24/us/scientist-clones-human-embryos-and-creates-an-ethical-challenge.html. Accessed: 07-01-2016.

[24] “Human Cloning and Human Dignity: An Ethical Inquiry.” Online (URL), https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcbe/reports/cloningreport/children.html. Accessed: 12-01-2016.

[25] Cf. Holm Søren, The Future of Human Reproduction: Ethics, Choice, and Regulation (Oxford: Claendon Press, 1998), p. 24.

[26] Cf. P. O. d’Aulaire, “Clones: Will there be “carbon copy” People?” In “Readers Digest,” Nov. 1979, p. 65.   

[27] Cf. J. A. Hammes, “Psychological, Philosophical and Moral Aspect of Biogenic Engineering,” In Communio, 1978, p. 162.

[28] “Pope Says Human Cloning is Morally Unacceptable”, (Online), URL:

http://www.mercola.com/2000/sept/17/pope_cloning.htm, June 7, 2003.

[29] [29] Cf. Courtney S. Campbell, “CLONING HUMAN BEINGS: Religious Perspectives on Human Cloning,” (Online), URL: https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/nbac/pubs/cloning2/cc4.pdf.  

[30] Cf. Courtney S. Campbell, “CLONING HUMAN BEINGS: Religious Perspectives on Human Cloning,” (Online), URL: https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/nbac/pubs/cloning2/cc4.pdf.

[31] See Joseph Fletcher, The Ethics of Genital Control (New York: Anchor Press, 1974).

[32] “Cloning Human Beings: Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission, Vol. 2,” In United States. National Bioethics Advisory Commission (USA: Indiana University, 1997), p. 41.

[33] Cf. David Shaw, Genetic Morality (Berlin, Peter Lang AG: International Academic Publishers, 2006), p. 204.

[34] See D.M., Rorvik, In His Image: The Cloning of a Man, (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Company, 1978).

[35] “Cloning Human Beings: Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission, Vol. 2,” In United States. National Bioethics Advisory Commission (USA: Indiana University, 1997), p. D-5.

[36] See R.A., McCormick, “Blastomere separation: Some concerns,” Hastings Centre Report, 24(2):14-16, 199

[37] Cf. T.A., Shannon, “Cloning, uniqueness, and individuality,” Louvain Studies,

19:283-306, 1994.

[38] Cf. A.D., Verhey, “Theology after Dolly,” The Christian Century, March 19-26, 1997, 285-286.

[39] Cf. Patrick R. Frierson, Freedom and Anthropology in Kant's Moral Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), p. 158.

[40] Cf. Mattias Johansson, “The Human Cloning Era on the Doorstep to our Posthuman Future” - Master´s Thesis in Applied Ethics. Centre for Applied Ethics Linköping University, 2003.

https://publications.lib.chalmers.se/records/fulltext/170547/170547.pdf. Accessed: 10-01-2016.

                               

[41] Cf. Mattias Johansson, “The Human Cloning Era on the Doorstep to our Posthuman Future” - Master´s Thesis in Applied Ethics. Centre for Applied Ethics Linköping University, 2003.

https://publications.lib.chalmers.se/records/fulltext/170547/170547.pdf. Accessed: 10-01-2016.

[42] Immanuel Kant, (translated by Paton, H.J.), Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (New York: Harper collins, 1964), p. 429.

[43] Cf. A.J.M., Milne, Human Rights and Human Diversity: An Essay in the Philosophy of Human Rights, (New York: University of New York Press, 1986), p. 125.

[44] Cf. A.J.M., Milne, Human Rights and Human Diversity: An Essay in the Philosophy of Human Rights, p. 125.

[45] Mattias Johansson, “The Human Cloning Era on the Doorstep to our Posthuman Future” - Master´s Thesis in Applied Ethics. Centre for Applied Ethics Linköping University, 2003.

https://publications.lib.chalmers.se/records/fulltext/170547/170547.pdf. Accessed: 10-01-2016.