ne. First, with the incorporation of human cloning into the market, clones become objectified and subject to money equivalence. As Suzanne Holland argues (using Radins analysis), DNA is personal property and so by detaching (as cloning technology does) what is so integral to the self and to make it monetizable is to do violence to our deepest understanding of what is human and in some sense truncates our account of human personhood. This objectification of humans that leads to subjection to money equivalence is de-valuing human life and treating it as another thing to be sold in the market. We no longer become humans, but objects to be sold in the market. My question here is, will cloning in any way promote the value of human life? I think not. The second point I want to argue is that human cloning will lead to a loss of human dignity and what it means to be a human. I agree with Holland that feminist ethics of rights relations brings to light why cloning humans does not promote the essence of humanity. Two important aspects of rights relations are: 1) rights relations focuses on our interconnectedness and its ability to affirm dignity in being a human; 2) moving towards a social order that reflects and respects our essential human dignity. The first aspect of right relations suggests that since we are interconnected, we should not act selfishly and autonomously, but that we should consider how it would affect the common good of which we are related to. The second aspect of rights relations suggests that we should use technologies that promote our human dignity and with that our interrelatedness. With the use of human cloning selfish desires are pursued, while our interconnectedness is forgotten. There is an end to rights relations and with that comes an end to human dignity and this end to human dignity leads into the instrumental use of human beings, the clone. Again, do we want to be a society that cares so much about pursuing genet...
