Cloning Argument for and Against Cloning

Cloning Argument for and Against Cloning

In the past few years, the topic of cloning has been in the news a lot. It is a very controversial issue, with many opposing viewpoints. While some people may find it acceptable, others object for religious reasons. A big concern is the possibility of abuse of this new technology. One of the biggest questions is "Where will we stop?" We may start by just experimenting and studying, but then what? Manufacturing human bodies for spare parts? No one can be sure where it will stop. The Supreme Court says that everyone has the right to make their own reproductive decisions without government interference, but now it is proposing bans on human cloning. These bans prevent the very research needed to make cloning safe (Eibert). So, it seems that the government is not giving human cloning a chance. There are many benefits to cloning in the fields of fertility, organ transplants, and fighting disease. Although there are many benefits, is it possible that the effects and moral considerations are too great for us to continue experimentation.

Scientists and ethicists alike have debated the implications of human and non-human cloning extensively since 1997 when scientists at the Roslin Institute in Scotland produced Dolly. No direct conclusions have been drawn, but compelling arguments state that cloning of both human and non-human species results in harmful physical and psychological effects on both groups.

The possible physical damage that could be done if human cloning became a reality is obvious when one looks at the sheer loss of life that occurred before the birth of Dolly. Less than ten percent of the initial transfers survive to be healthy creatures. There were 277 trial implants of nuclei. Nineteen of those 277 were deemed healthy while the others were discarded.

Five of those nineteen survived, but four of them died within ten days of birth from sever abnormalities. Dolly was the only one to survive (Adler 1996). If those nuclei were human, "the cellular body count would look like sheer carnage" (Kluger 1997). Even Ian Wilmut, one of the scientists accredited with the cloning phenomenon at the Roslin Institute agrees, "The more you interfere with reproduction, the more danger there is of things going wrong" (Expert Opinion). The psychological effects of cloning are less obvious, but none the less, very plausible. In addition to physical harms, there are worries about the psychological harms on cloned human children.

One of those harms is the loss of identity, or sense of individuality. Many argue that cloning creates serious issues of identity and individuality and forces humans to consider the definition of self. Gilbert Meilaender commented on the importance of genetic uniqueness not only to the child but to the parent as well when he appeared before the National Bioethics Advisory Commission on March 13, 1997. He states that "children begin with a kind of genetic independence of [the parent]. They replicate neither their father nor their mother. That is a reminder of the independence that [the parent] must eventually grant them...To lose even in principle this sense of the child as a gift will not be good for the children" (Expert Opinion).

Others look souly at the child, like philosopher Hans Jonas. He suggests that humans have an inherent "right to ignorance" or a quality of "separateness." Ignorance of the effect of one's genes on one's future is necessary for the spontaneous construction of life and self (Jonas 1974). Human cloning can be damaging to the clone and to the family of the cloned as well.

Benefits

One of the major benefits of cloning technology is improvement in the field of fertility. In vitro fertilization only has a success rate of about 10%. To improve effectiveness, doctors could clone embryos, and the success rate could drastically increase (Masci 413). Another benefit in the field of fertility is that parents unable to conceive naturally, even with in vitro, or people too old to conceive, could still have a genetically related child (Masci 413-414). With cloning, egg and sperm would not be necessary for reproduction, because any body cell would work (Eibert). The resulting offspring would actually be a replica of one parent (Masci 413-414). Other benefits to using cloning come in the field of fighting disease. When genes are not in use, they become dormant. In order for cloning to take place, all genes must be active. Discovering how genes are turned on and off could lead to treatment for different cancers (Masci 414). Cloning could also revolutionize the field of organ transplant. Organs and bone marrow could be cloned and used for transplant. Thousands of people die waiting for transplants, so this could save many lives. In addition, the organs used in the transplant could come from the same patient, reducing the risk of rejection by the body (Masci 414).

To treat heart attack victims, doctors could clone healthy heart cells and inject them into damaged areas of the heart (Masci 415). Nerves and spinal cords could be grown, giving quadriplegics the ability to walk again (Human Cloning Foundation). One more benefit, according to Dr. Richard Seed, a leader in the push for human cloning, is that scientists may someday be able to reverse the aging process. One argument is that it is not necessary for bone marrow transplant because bone marrow can already be harvested and grown in a dish (Masci 415). One drawback is the possibility of mutation. An abnormal baby could result from mutated genes (Global Change.com). Another drawback is the possibility of emotional problems. A clone could have a hard time establishing his or her identity (Global Change.com). Karen Rothenberg of the University of Maryland School of Law at Baltimore says that "While I feel unique if I have a twin sister, I do not if I have fifty or one hundred. I no longer understand myself as a creation, but as a copy" (Masci 413). Rothenberg goes on to say that cloning would challenge "concepts basic to our humanness." She says that cloning would eliminate our need for reproduction (Masci 414), which, in a sense, makes us less human. One religious argument against cloning is the thought of "Playing God." Munawar Ahmad Anees, an Islamic scholar, says that "The human body is God's property, not man's laboratory" (Masci 414-415). By this he means that we should not be experimenting with our bodies the way we do. He says that the body should only be reproduced by sexual reproduction (Masci 414-415).

One of the most significant arguments in favor of human cloning is that children who need bone marrow or organ transplants could clone themselves

...