A Clone by any Other Name

Journal of Philosophical Research 32 (9999):247-255 (2007)
  Copy   BIBTEX


The possibility of cloning human beings raises the difficult question: Which human lives have value and deserve legal protection? Current cloning legislation tries to hide the problem by illegitimately renaming the entities and processes in question. The Delaware cloning bill, (SB55 2003/2004) for example, permits and protects the creation of human embryos by cloning, as long as they will be destroyed for research and therapeutic purposes, but it adopts terminology which renders its import unclear. I show that, in the case of cloning legislation, the burden of proof is on those who would adopt new terminology, and it has not been met.



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 76,479

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Human Cloning and Organ Transplants vs. Definition of Human Being.Jerzy Pelc - 2007 - The Proceedings of the Twenty-First World Congress of Philosophy 1:235-244.
New Technologies, Old Distinctions: What’s Wrong with Cloning.Max J. Latona - 2004 - Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 78:277-288.
Stop press: Human cloning bill in Victorian parliament.Norman Ford - 2007 - Chisholm Health Ethics Bulletin 12 (3):12.
Cloning and identity.Nicholas Agar - 2003 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 28 (1):9 – 26.
Does the Non-Identity Problem Block a Class of Arguments Against Cloning?Richard Greene - 2004 - International Journal of Applied Philosophy 18 (1):95-101.


Added to PP

45 (#262,348)

6 months
2 (#302,213)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Katherin Rogers
University of Delaware

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references