Argument
The ownership of human clones translates to ownership of human beings and this leads to several questions regarding the human rights of the clones. When considering the ownership of human clones, one should first understand that a clone is not a duplication of an adult human being with similar memories. Instead, it is another human being simply created with identical DNA and has been developed through implanting of an embryo. The legal parent of the human clone should thus be another human being, which in this case, is the donor. Doing this establishes a proper framework for establishing the rights of the human clone. When corporations are treated as legal parents, a corporation is by no means a human being and no parental relationship can be established between the corporation and the clone. The only relationship existent between the corporations and the clones would be that of property ownership. Petrini (2012) observes that no person should own another individual since this would mean slavery and would violate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Having corporations as legal parents of clones translates to human ownership by corporations and this violates human rights.
Counter-argument
I do not agree with Petrini who concludes that recognition of human clones as property does not undermine a person’s ontological value in “Is my blood mine? Some comments on the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine” (2013), two reasons she gives for reaching this conclusion are (1) ownership of human clones protects against unacceptable commercial exploitation and (2) it can be used to highlight the relationship between an individual and her body and does not undermine a person’s ontological value. Instead of recognizing clones as human property, they should be recognized as human beings and have rights in order to protect them from ownership.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Conclusion
The ownership of human clones translates to ownership of human beings and this undermines the human rights of the clones. The counterargument is that recognizing clones as property can prevent commercial exploitation.
References
Petrini, C. (2012). Ethical and legal considerations regarding the ownership and commercial use of human biological materials and their derivatives. Journal of blood medicine , 3 , 87.
Petrini, C. (2013). Is my blood mine? Some comments on the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine. Blood Transfusion , 11 (3), 321.
