Creating fido's twin: Can pet cloning be ethically justified?

Hastings Center Report 35 (4):34-39 (2005)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

: Taken at face value, pet cloning may seem at best a frivolous practice, costly both to the cloned pet's health and its owner's pocket. At worst, its critics say, it is misguided and unhealthy—a way of exploiting grief to the detriment of the animal, its owner, and perhaps even animal welfare in general. But if the great pains we are willing to take to clone Fido raise the status of companion animals in the public eye, then the practice might be defensible

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 93,932

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

New Dog: Old Tricks.Mark Greene - 2002 - Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 5 (3):239-242.
Pet cloning harms animals.Jennifer Fearing - 2006 - In William Dudley (ed.), Animal rights. Detroit, [Mich.]: Thomson Gale.
Pet cloning does not harm animals.Autumn Fiester - 2006 - In William Dudley (ed.), Animal rights. Detroit, [Mich.]: Thomson Gale.
The Question of Human Cloning.John A. Robertson - 1994 - Hastings Center Report 24 (2):6-14.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
60 (#261,489)

6 months
17 (#203,231)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Add more citations

References found in this work

Add more references