In Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, there is a dilemma between creating new life, respecting ethics and the safety of Victor's family. in some sort, this book reflects today's issue of cloning.
In Frankenstein, this dilemma began when Victor Frankenstein went to Ingolstadt to study science. After he greatly improved as a scientist, he was able to give birth to a new kind of human. With this invention, he wanted to get glory and recognition, but this type of science was against the ethics of those times. In those times, people used to follow church ethics. For the church, a being had to be created by the union of a man and a woman. It would've been unacceptable believe that only one man could give birth to a being, even if it is scientifically proved. Also, after the creature was created, Victor faced another problem. The ''monster'', after he got rejected by other humans for this appearance, was putting Victor's family and close friends in danger. At the end, he chose to protect other human beings by not creating a companion for the monster, but it cost him his life and his family's life.
In today's life, we have a similar dilemma, but this time with real beings and it also involves science. A Raelian sect created a company called ''Clonaid'', they claim that they've cloned a baby, but the controversy is that they do not want to show him publicly, so we cannot proved that the baby has been cloned, because the parents think that legal actions can take the baby away from them. Also, scientists of the company fear that if the baby is shown to the society, both, the company and the family of the baby would be rejected from the society due to ethical issues. In today's world, many people's ethics are influenced by those of the church, and like explained before, the church followed by the society would not accept cloning. Another ethical issue is that people might think that it might be inhuman to expose a baby to that kind of treatments.
After reading the book of Mary Shelley and some articles about cloning, I asked myself whether we should still believe that the only way to procreate is by the union of a woman and a man, or we should go further and find other ways, such as cloning, to create beings.
Really interesting post! The idea of cloning seems to be a controversial issue, yet a very interesting subject. I had no idea about the "Clonaid" company until you approached it in your topic. Although you give some good factual information, what is your opinion on cloning? Do you believe that it is a moral restraint, or ethical issue?
ReplyDeletePersonally I believe there's a bigger reason why it is not accepted by society, and it has little to do with religion or the Christian church. As human beings, there are certain needs that we cannot attain by creating a new "person" if you will. We need love, attention, and nurturing from our parents. We see it in the example of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, Victor tries to create a new scientific monster, but neglects any form of attention towards him. The idea of cloning is similar to creating a robot. Is that really what society needs? I would love to hear what you think about it.
You raise some interesting points here, Carlos. The topic of cloning is definitely one that we can link with Frankenstein, though I'm not sure I follow your argument all the way through. Your post mentions a range of conflicts: science vs religious ethics, personal vs social responsibility (i.e., F's choice to protect other human beings by not creating a companion for the creature, even though this choice costs him his life and the lives of friends and family), and finally the issue with Clonaid: social ethics and judgment vs scientific advances. Does Frankenstein ever wrestle with the conflict between religious ethics and his desire to advance scientific knowledge? Could you clarify the relationship between Frankenstein's conflict between personal vs social responsibility and the discussion of cloning that you go on to develop?
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think of cloning? I know that one advantage of sexual reproduction (recombination of genes) vs asexual reproduction (cloning)--besides the obvious one--is that the recombination of genes provides more genetic variation, which provides more chances of evolutionary success. Some organisms have the capacity to switch between methods: they clone when times are good (they have a successful genotype), and resort to sexual reproduction when times are more challenging so they have a better chance of producing successful offspring. I suppose we could be on the brink of something similar.