I am in favor the idea cloning of a complete human being have to be legalized and freely researched. I have come to this conclusion because I feel that cloning brings extra benefits than harm. Cloning means replica and everyone possesses a right to reproduce on the other hand they deem acceptable. The right to propagation includes the proper to reproduce and the choice of the means to procreate. Those who argue towards this fact feel that cloning is surely just human manufacturing. However, I think that human cloning is no longer covered as a moral act solely because it has other objectified ethical features that some people experience are degrading to human dignity.
Cloning follows a straightforward process. The nucleus from the embryo of an adult mammal is retrieved and placed in an enucleated ovum. The resulting embryo develops and has the exact genetic code of the original animal. The cloned animal therefore possesses the same physical appearance of the original one (Bonnicksen, 2002). The process has many flaws and is not yet perfect, but most scientists feel that the same procedure could be used to clone a human being. It took Doctor Wilmurt several failures before he could come up with the first cloned sheep name Dolly. The creation of Dolly brought about a lot of negative responses with the then US president ordering closure of all financial institutions that sponsored human cloning. The UN condemned cloning and termed it ethically unacceptable. It was frowned upon worldwide, and people called it a violation of human rights. However, I feel that before dooming it we should look at some of its possible advantages.
Human cloning if accepted will be an avenue to relieve the nightmare of infertility that many couples in the world experience (Brannigan, 2001). It makes it possible for couples to produce an offspring that is biologically related to them. Obtaining a nucleus from both parents and inserting them in an enucleated ovum will give rise to a child who possesses the genes of both parents. Cloning, therefore, provides reproductive freedom with couples being able to choose their method of reproduction. Those who argue against cloning, however, claim that there is a considerable number of children throughout the world that could be adopted and ease the pain of infertility. Nonetheless, it’s not comparable to the satisfying feeling that parents experience from carrying their children throughout pregnancy (Kunich, 2003). Human cloning provides infertile parents this golden experience. While it may not be ideal for all people – both fertile and infertile-, numerous individuals feel it’s a good and respectable method to ease the suffering of infertility.
Cloning of a twin would enable acquisition of a needed organ or tissue. There have been numerous cases of sick people who needed an organ transplant but passed on due to lack of a compatible donor. Accepting human cloning would reduce chances of organ rejection by hosts and would act as an insurance policy for the treatment of various medical complications. If taken, this process would end up saving millions of lives and tremendously increase life expectancy. Critics of this procedure, however, feel that the cloned twin would be treated as a lesser human being (Here’s why we’re still not cloning humans, 2017). They think that the twin is treated more like a specimen and a lab rat than an individual. According to them, the twin is not loved on its own but treated as a means to benefit the other. Unfortunately, this criticism assumes that the only motivation to cloning a twin is to save the other. A case in point from years ago involves the Ayala family from California whose teenage daughter had leukemia. She required a bone marrow transplant to live, and the parents vowed that if they bore a child who could donate the organ to their daughter, they would love and treat it as a member of their family. In Kantian terms, the child was treated as a means to save their daughter but not solely as a means. Additionally, one individual has proposed that cloning could be a way to acquire lifesaving organs. After cell differentiation, some of the brain cells should be removed forming an unconscious clone which would then act as a spare part (YARRI, 2009). Of course, critics feel that this is immoral and unfeeling as it denies the clone the right to life. According to them, this process strips humans their self-worth.
Giving rise to a human clone would provide an opportunity for a family to recreate a person who passed on and had special meaning to them (Dovey, 2017). Undoubtedly, many parents would love the chance to reconstruct the memory of a lost child which may be as a result of confusion arising from grief. Cloning provides an opportunity to develop a human with the same genetic orientation and characteristics with the lost one. This process ensures the parents have the hope and strength to accept a loss. Although it is ideal, those who argue against it feel that bearing another child would also be a perfect source of comfort. They say that the cloned child would only serve as a constant reminder of the lost child.
Human cloning would also enable the duplication of some of the most loved individuals who had great talent and accomplishment such as Mozart, Einstein, Picasso Martin Luther King among others. These people may have possessed some genetic endowment that made them extraordinary. Cloning them would give rise to individuals like them who would probably change the society today. Critics, however, feel that even though we recreate these people, we cannot recreate the moments they lived to achieve their accomplishments. Maybe, they were outstanding because of the nature of the circumstances they were in hence we cannot be entirely sure of what their clones may achieve.
Up to now, cloning has not received the ethical deduction or attention that it deserves which has led to some misguided beliefs. I believe that if we take a close look at the good that can arise from this procedure, it will be one of the greatest scientific inventions of our time. It will not only serve as a key to making our society great again but also as an antidote to pain and suffering of individuals in the world. It will revolutionize the medical world increasing life expectancy and decreasing human misery in general. Cloning gives the human race a glimpse of immortality and gives people a chance of diversity in reproduction (YARRI, 2009). It could be the key to a brand new and excellent society. Of course, we cannot fail to look at some of the harm that it may bring. It gives rise to some questions on numerous moral implications making some people reserved about accepting it. However, we should give it a shot and see how it works out for the betterment of our lives. Laws can be put in place to monitor the procedure and stop individuals who may have intentions of using this process to violate the right of others. Being levelheaded about these process will be of significant advantage to the human race.
(2017). Retrieved 11 October 2017, from https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/nbac/pubs/cloning2/cc5.pdf
Klotzko, A. (2003). The cloning sourcebook. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bonnicksen, A. (2002). Crafting a cloning policy. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
Klotzko, A. (2003). The cloning sourcebook. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brannigan, M. (2001). Ethical issues in human cloning. New York, NY: Seven Bridges Press.
Kunich, J. (2003). The naked clone. Westport, Conn.: Praeger.
Check, E. (2017). Cloning special: Dolly: a hard act to follow. Retrieved 11 October 2017, from
Here’s why we’re still not cloning humans, 2. (2017). Here’s why we’re still not cloning humans, 20 years after Dolly, the sheep. Business Insider. Retrieved 11 October 2017, from http://www.businessinsider.com/can-you-clone-a-human-2016-7?IR=T
Dovey, D. (2017). The Science Of Human Cloning: How Far We’ve Come And How Far We’re Capable Of Going. Medical Daily. Retrieved 11 October 2017, from http://www.medicaldaily.com/science-human-cloning-how-far-weve-come-and-how-far-were-capable-going-340006
YARRI, D. (2009). God, Science, and Designer Genes. ABC-CLIO.
DailyHistory.org. “Early Horse Domestication.” How has the Role of Horses Changed in Human Societies? 3.1 (2014): 3. Web. Accessed 1 March 2017 at http://dailyhistory.org/How_has_the_Role_of_Horses_Changed_in_Human_Societies%3F.