Table of contents for Human cloning and legal rights / Kerry Lynn Macintosh.

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
Five Common Objections to Human Reproductive Cloning Reflect, Reinforce, and
Inspire Stereotypes About Human Clones.
Does Human Reproductive Cloning Offend God and Nature?
Cloning and Frankenstein
Should Children Be Begotten, and Not Made?
Lessons from Assisted Reproductive Technologies
Do Human Clones Lack Individuality?
Why Is the Identity Fallacy Wrong?
Can Hitler Be Reborn?
Individuality and Autonomy
Family Relationships
Identity Theft
Could Human Clones Destroy Humanity?
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
Large Offspring Syndrome
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
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
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
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
Congressional Action and Political Realism
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.
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

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.