Moral

Morality is concerned with questions of right and wrong. Many problems in life are universally agreed upon, such as spitting on others, a parent assaulting and molesting his or her children, and cheating and lying. However, there are some issues in life where people's moral values can vary. When it comes to these topics, it's always difficult to tell what's right and wrong because both sides of the debate have valid reasons for their positions (Hinman). Cloning, for example, is a reproductive question on which people are entirely divided about whether it is morally permissible. There are many reasons for and against cloning, but the most crucial question is whether cloning is ethically acceptable. Cloning, in my opinion, is unethical. However, before deciding on its morality, it is essential to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of cloning. Cloning is a scientific procedure that produces a genetic copy of a biological object (Kass and Wilson). There are two types of cloning, reproductive cloning and therapeutic cloning. Reproductive cloning involves technologically producing a living thing whereas therapeutic cloning involves creating a healthy replica of a sick individual’s tissue (National Research Council).

Just like any other moral issue in the contemporary America, cloning has both pros and cons. From a point of view of some people’s cloning is perfectly acceptable. Some of the arguments for cloning include- the ability of cloning to recreate a damaged tissue, ability of cloning technology to produce genetically identical organs to those of the donor such as hearts, lungs and kidneys, the ability of sterile couples to have a kid (Aurelia). Furthermore, same sex couples can contribute parts of their tissues to have a kid that shares the same genetic composition. Other people feel that if someone is talented be it in sports or academics then they should see it as a good idea to produce more of themselves through cloning. This will ensure that their talent will continue to flourish even after their passing. Moreover, there are those who argue that in case one loses his/her child, then they should clone a similar copy of their child.

There is a sizable number of people believing that cloning is acceptable and beneficial. However, there is a percentage that believes that cloning is immoral and unacceptable. Medical practitioners, for example, believes that reproductive cloning is risky and despite the advancement in technology, it would take many trial and error experiments to recreate a human baby (National Research Council). Up to date, there is no known cloned person in the world. The only documented cloned living organism is ‘dolly’, a sheep that was cloned by Dr. Ian Wilmut in 1997. However, Dr. Ian had to conduct 277 procedures and only one succeeded to produce a lamb (Kass and Wilson). Therefore, cloning a human being would involve hundreds of pregnancies before one become successful. Furthermore, research shows that clones are usually unhealthy and have a number of built-in hereditary defects that tend to make them age faster and die within a short period of time. Hence, it is morally wrong to bring up a creature knowing that it will be affected by these problems.

Another problem that can be associated with cloning is the possibility for people to be cloned without their knowledge. People leave millions of cells in the course of their daily lives and these cells may be used to create a genetic replica of themselves without their knowledge. This is morally wrong.

There is also a possibility that people may produce a clone of themselves in order to harvest organs from the clone. This is possible where the donor has a terminal illness that can only be cured by an organ transplant. In this case, the donor will heal at the expense of the clone and this is morally wrong. There is no parent that would wish for their child to be used as an organ bank.

The possibility that a cloned child can be used as an organ bank might occur because the child has no parent to identify with. Moreover, parents may end up regarding their cloned child as a property (Kass and Wilson). In life, there is usually a bond between the parent and the kid, whether the kid was adopted or not. However, in the case of cloning this bond will not be there and the child might feel lost and abandoned. Therefore, for cloning to work the donor must be willing to take care of the child and give it the right parental care.

Apart from the lack of parental care, the clone may suffer some of the genetic defects of the donor. Cloning is simply a replication of genes and therefore there will be no biological diversity. This simply means that the defects of the donor may be transferred genetically to the clone. A reduction in diversity of genes will have a negative impact on the ability of the clone to adapt to the environmental factors. From a moral point of view, it would be unethical to produce a child knowing that it will not adapt to the physical conditions of the environment (Aurelia).

In the physical environment, the clones may suffer the problem of personal identity. Cloning is a form of asexual reproduction and as such the clones are usually very similar physically and genetically. Research has shown that an embryo can give rise to one or more embryos (Kass and Wilson). Similarly, an adult can give rise to many clones that are alike in many ways. This similarity can be harmful to the clones. The case of identical twins is usually cited to show that clones will not have identity problems. However, it should be noted that identical twins encounter challenges in their social and personal development (Hinman). This usually occurs in environments where society cannot distinguish their distinct identity. Therefore, it is possible to get one cloned person being blamed for the wrongdoings of another who is physically similar to him/her. Consequently, with cloning people will lose their personal identity. Furthermore, it is possible to use the clones interchangeably and this will pose a problem to the people dealing with them.

Still, on the issue of personal identity, there will be a big difference in age between the clone and the donor. This difference in age will pose a problem to both the clone and the person from whom the clone was obtained from. The clone will see the donor acquiring some physical features, whether positive or negative and he will feel tension with himself. On the other hand, the donor will compare himself to the clone. Though the clones and the donor might not meet in their life, the idea that there is someone similar to them may cause them to have a sense of incompleteness. This may hinder them from concentrating on their lives.

Another problem that can be associated with cloning is the distortion of normal healthy functioning. Distortion of normal health functioning occurs naturally. However, there is no justification for causing them to occur deliberately. Cloning is a deliberate procedure that distorts the normal functioning of cells. Cloning, for example, by embryo splitting produces something out of the natural functioning. Some people may argue that there is a value when something is produced from natural imitation. However, there is no value in creating something that is distorted physically and that will be prone to diseases such as heart failure, diabetes and cancer. Therefore, if cloning will cause death whether to the donor or the clone then it is wrong.

In conclusion, cloning is morally wrong. Although there are pros and cons for cloning, we need to examine the bigger picture. The fact that there are benefits for cloning is no reason to accept it. We need to also look at the cons. If the cons outweigh the pros then there is no reason to continue cloning. We need to analyze the problems that are posed by the lack of genetic diversity, lack of personal identity, lack of parental bond and care and the inability of the clone to adapt to its physical environment. Clearly, the cons outweigh the pros and therefore cloning in any form is not morally permissible and should be banned altogether.







Works Cited

Aurelia, Enescu. "Ethical Considerations on Human Cloning." Current Health Science Journal (2017): 2.

Hinman, Lawrence M. Contemporary Moral Issues: Diversity and Consensus. New York: Pearson Education, Inc, 2013. Book.

Kass, Leon and James Q. Wilson. The Ethics of Human Cloning. New York: THE AEI PRESS, 1998.

National Research Council. Scientific and Medical Aspects of Human Reproductive Cloning. Washington: National Academic Press, 2002.

Wilson, James Q. "THE PARADOX OF CLONING." 26 May 1997. weeklystandard. 4 August 2017. .