Bibliographic record and links to related information available from the Library of Congress catalog.
Note: Contents data are machine generated based on pre-publication provided by the publisher. Contents may have variations from the printed book or be incomplete or contain other coding.
Table of Contents Acknowledgments Introduction Five Common Objections to Human Reproductive Cloning Reflect, Reinforce, and Inspire Stereotypes About Human Clones. Does Human Reproductive Cloning Offend God and Nature? God Nature Cloning and Frankenstein Should Children Be Begotten, and Not Made? Lessons from Assisted Reproductive Technologies Stereotypes Do Human Clones Lack Individuality? Why Is the Identity Fallacy Wrong? Can Hitler Be Reborn? Individuality and Autonomy Family Relationships Identity Theft Stereotypes Could Human Clones Destroy Humanity? Overpopulation Genetic Diversity Eugenics and Genetic Engineering Does Human Reproductive Cloning Harm Participants and Produce Children with Birth Defects? The Efficiency of Cloning Dolly and the 277 ``Attempts" Current Success Rates Efficiency in the Future The Role of Large Offspring Syndrome The Role of Reprogramming The Telomere Scare Stereotypes Inefficiency Large Offspring Syndrome Reprogramming Telomeres The Dangers of Excessive Caution Summary of Part I Anti-cloning Laws Are Bad Public Policy. What Anti-cloning Laws Say and Do. Federal Bills Efforts to Ban All Cloning Efforts to Ban Reproductive Cloning Only The Commerce Clause FDA State Laws Possible Legal Futures The Five Objections Have Inspired Anti-cloning Laws. Federal Law Cloning Offends God and/or Nature Cloning Treats Humans as Products Human Clones Are Copies Human Clones Could Destroy Humanity Cloning is Unsafe State Law Anti-cloning Laws Reflect a Policy of Existential Segregation. Anti-miscegenation Laws Anti-cloning Laws in Historical Context The Costs of Anti-cloning Laws Outweigh Their Benefits. The Costs of a National Ban on Cloning First Cost: Violation of Procreative Freedom Second Cost: Violation of Scientific Freedom Third Cost: Loss of Human Resources Fourth Cost: Exclusion of Citizens at the National Border Fifth Cost: Legal Stigma Sixth Cost: Loss of Parents, Funds, and Assets Seventh Cost: Loss of Genetic and Personal History Eighth Cost: The High Cost of Living a Lie Ninth Cost: Isolation Tenth Cost: Undermining Egalitarianism The Costs of State Anti-cloning Laws The Benefits of Anti-cloning Laws Keeping God and Nature Happy Ensuring that Humans Are Not Treated as Products Preventing the Birth of Copies Saving Humanity Safety Protecting Participants from Harm Preventing the Birth of Children with Physical Defects Summary of Part II Anti-cloning Laws Violate the Equal Protection Guarantee and Are Unconstitutional. Anti-cloning Laws Classify Human Clones and Are Subject to Strict Scrutiny. Anti-cloning Laws Deliberately Treat Human Clones Differently from Humans Born Through Sexual Reproduction. Disparate Impact Discriminatory Purpose Strict Scrutiny Applies Because Human Clones Are a Suspect Class. Disabilities, History and Powerlessness: The Need for Extraordinary Protection of the Class Discrete and Insular Minorities Visible Characteristics Immutable Characteristics Fairness, Stereotypes, and the Ability to Contribute to Society Stigma Congressional Action and Political Realism Summary Anti-cloning Laws Inflict Judicially Cognizable Injuries that Confer Standing. Basic Principles of Federal Standing First Example: Exclusion at the Border Second Example: Prosecution of Parents The Need for a New Approach to Standing Third Example: Targeting and Legal Stigma Plaintiffs May Find it Easier to Establish Standing to Challenge Anti-cloning Laws in State Courts. Summary Anti-Cloning Laws Violate the Equal Protection Guarantee. The Government Cannot Prove that Cloning Offends God and/or Nature. Moreover, Religious and Moral Objections Are Not Considered Compelling Interests. The Government Cannot Prove that Cloning Treats Humans as Products. Moreover, Anti-cloning Laws Are Not Narrowly Tailored to Protect Human Dignity. The Government Cannot Prove that Human Clones Are Copies. Moreover, Anti-cloning Laws Are Not Narrowly Tailored to Protect Individuality. The Government Cannot Prove Human Clones Threaten the Survival of Humanity. Moreover, Anti-cloning Laws Are Not Narrowly Tailored to Protect Humanity. The Government Cannot Prove that Cloning is Unsafe, or that Human Clones Are Physically Flawed. Moreover, Anti-cloning Laws Are Not Narrowly Tailored to Meet Safety Concerns, Today and in the Future. Risks to Participants Preventing the Birth of Humans with Physical Defects The Legacy of Buck v. Bell Proving the Superiority of Nonexistence Safety in the Future Narrowly Tailored Means Summary Conclusion
Library of Congress Subject Headings for this publication:
Human cloning -- Law and legislation -- United States.
Human reproductive technology -- Law and legislation -- United States.
Human cloning -- Research -- Law and legislation.
Human cloning -- Moral and ethical aspects.