Let's Legalize Cloning By Hugh Mclachlan

Human Cloning Morals and ethics are important in society and culture and are used to determine if something is usually good or bad. Not everyone has the same opinions on what is ethical or morally right because it’s subjective. Therefore, when reading ethical arguments, it is difficult to decipher if something is valid or not. Personal opinions can sneak in and then the work is now biased, they leave out important information or there is no research to their claims. In an article published in New Scientist by Hugh McLachlan is a good example of how the criteria for a good ethical argument is not met. In the article “Let’s Legalize Cloning” written by McLachlan he is in favor of human cloning and gives his examples why. The idea of human

He then makes the argument that people accept genetically identical people in the form of clones and that they would be less alike that twins because they would be brought up in different ages and different contexts. He is appealing environmental factors that would affect the clone. However, he gives no sources for this argument. Already the credibility of his argument in slowly diminishing. Then, he ends the paragraph with “Objecting to cloning on these grounds makes no sense” (Mclachlan). He comes off with a hostile and condescending tone which is not good for an argument. If he wants people to listen to what he has to say he cannot come off in a rude way. Otherwise, they have already tuned out what point he is

He says, “We know from animal cloning studies that the risks to the mother and the baby are likely to be very high, although they may diminish as the technique is perfected”(McLachlan). McLachlan addresses the other side of the argument but does not go into depth. Since there is not enough information on the topic he cannot give a solid argument. His value for human life seems not be an important part in his argument as well. Even if it could be perfected, it would take a considerable amount of time and a lot of money. This is what he does not address and does not take into account. Therefore, his argument is weak for the lack of information. He also goes on to say, “Yet in other areas of reproduction (or life in general) safety alone is not seen as sufficient grounds to make something illegal. The risks should be explained to the prospective mother, and she should then have the right to decide for herself, as with any other medical procedure, whether to accept them”