“As a humanist, I see the ability of my species to manage its own evolution to be one of its most wonderful emerging properties, an ability that distinguishes humans from every other species” (Hull 18). Cloning will involve many positive aspects that are often overlooked. Parents will take care of a cloned child just like they would an adopted child. A clone will appear and act just like a normal human being. Experiments will be performed to expand our technologies of human science. The three reasons cloning should be practiced are: better parenting will be performed because extensive planning is required to have a clone, lives of loved ones can be saved and replaced, and because of the proven success of the new life of a girl named Katy. Although cloning may be unethical and immoral, it could be the cutting edge to extend human existence.
Some people say that clones will not have direct parents. Hass states “If an individual did manage to clone himself, the result cloned child would be deprived of the normal nurturing relationship with engendering parents” (208). People think that family values will be lost if there isn’t direct parents. The genes will be directly from the person that the clone was cloned from, not the parents. The construction of the family name and ancestry will be completely destroyed. “I would imagine that we might feel differently towards a clone, simply knowing of its peculiar origins, than we would toward somebody else, but we can only speculate at this point” (Callahan 3).
The parents will take better care of the child because the clone is planned. It doesn’t matter if the clone is not directly related with the parents; it is just like adopting a kid or like having an identical twin. Lewontin states “That donor is certainly not the child’s parent in any biological sense, but simply an earlier offspring of the original parents” (133). They are still related which, they will care for them just like a Grandma, Grandpa, Aunt, or Uncle would. Robertson states “The distinctly reproductive nature of their action is reinforced by the fact that they will gestate and rear the child that they clone” (73). Society shouldn’t worry so much of family values being ruined by cloning; they are already messed up from illegal drugs and abusive drinking problems within the family. It doesn’t matter if the parents are directly related if a family is willing to raise a clone, just like they would an adopted kid.
People seem to think that a clone will be mentally distressed when it finds out that he or she is different from most of society. The National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC) “Found that concerns relating to the potential psychological harms to children and effects on the moral, religious, and cultural values of society” (144). The clone may be thought of as an outcast of society because he or she is different. A child may become suicidal or a dangerous part of our society. People’s assumption of the fear of producing an unstable clone into our society, is definitely just speculation.
A clone will not be treated any different than any other human would be. There is no difference of the appearance or the way the clone would act. A clone acts and looks just like an identical twin, the only difference is how the clone was conceived. “… he or she would be a complete human being who happens to share the same genes with another person” (Bailey 183). No one would even know that a clone was a clone unless he or she told someone. Dr. Engelhardt states “You should treat all clones like you would treat all monozygous (identical) twins or triplets” (Bailey 183).
Some think that cloning is just another way to murder and experiment with the human fetus. Ina Roy states “In Dolly’s creation, nearly 300 defective clones were created prior to Dolly’s birth” (46). Dolly was a sheep that was the first species to be cloned. People feel that it is immoral to take several thousand lives in the process to perfect the human cloning process. Fielding states “Anti-abortionists pointed out that several eggs at a time were fertilized and the extras were dumped” (215). Some speculators feel that clones will be born with defects because of the repeat cloning of the same clone. Bailey states “The argument against cloning says that if enough human beings were cloned, pathogens would likely adapt and begin to get the upper hand, causing widespread diseases” (185).
I wouldn’t consider human experiments murder, I would consider it science. Bailey states “… unless there are millions of clones of one person, raging epidemics sweeping through hordes of human beings with identical genones seem very unlikely” (186). The testing and early deaths of the unused fetuses are important for us to advance in our human possibilities. Everyday tests are done on humans to try and find new antidotes for diseases and to find out how humans really work. Kadrey states “Despite the almost mystical power of the word cloning, the process happens constantly in nature and has become routine in labs around the world” (259). Experiments are needed to permit birth defects; it is more morally right to stop the growth of a fetus than to produce a clone with defects that would harm the rest of his or her life.
In comparison to the debatable points of cloning, the three main points explain why we should venture deeper into the science of human cloning. The complex process of cloning assures us that the parents will raise their clones just like any other child. The possibilities to reproduce loved ones can be obtainable just like it was for Katy.
Society is afraid that if cloning becomes a normal activity that families will lose their value, and parents will not raise their children properly. Parents will do a better job because they have to go through several complicated steps to clone a child. Robertson explains the steps to be cloned, “It will involve obtaining eggs, acquiring the DNA to be cloned, transfer of that DNA to a denucleated egg, placement of the activated embryo in a uterus, gestation, and the nurturing and rearing that the birth on any child requires” (68). A clone would not be put up for adoption or unwanted because of this complex process of cloning a child. A couple should have every right to clone a child. Robertson states “Given that the new child is cloned from the DNA of one of their own children, cloning one’s own embryo’s or children to achieve those goals should also be regarded as an exercise of procreative liberty that deserves the special respect usually accorded to procreative choice” (73).
With the advancements in science, cloning can be used to replace loved ones, produce an uncommon blood type or produce someone for the ability to perform an organ transplant. Death and illness can be prevented with the use of cloning. It isn’t fair if a newborn baby dies in a car wreck on their way home from the hospital. “There could be organ farms, there could be research into how to avoid genetic disease” (Callahan 1). This advancement could lead to many solutions to our epidemics in today’s human society. We need to take this step in science to expand our knowledge of the human body. “It may be possible in the future to clone individual organs without having to employ the medium of the fetus” (Hull 20). There are unlimited numbers of human possibilities that will open if we continue to practice human cloning.
With everyone’s predictions of the impossibilities to clone and how immorally wrong it would be to clone a human being, well it is to late because it has already been done. Kadrey states “… she announced to the world that only is having cloning possible, but that she and her team had already done it” (253). The 2-year-old girl named Katy Hythner is doing fine and is acting like a regular two year old girl does. Cloning humans if regulated will help humans proceed in our existence. A married couple doesn’t have to worry about having a boy or a girl that will not live long due to birth defects. With this state-of-the-art advancement, we can now proceed with our dominance in today’s universe. Koteas states “This is one little girl deeply loved by her ordinary mother and father. Trust me there is nothing to worry about” (Kadrey 264). We need to take this step and make it positive; science has advanced us this far so why hide from it now.
Although cloning may be unethical and immoral, it could be the cutting-edge to extend human existence. Parenting clones will soon become as normal as parenting an adopted child. We as humans need to stand behind the right to clone humans for the purpose to advance our technologies of the human body, and to master our purpose of life. The extensive planing to reproduce the lives of loved ones has shown to be very possible as it was achieved with Katy. We would be selfish and ignorant to turn our backs and not allow this wonderful advancement in science to develop. Cloning has been proven possible in several species, even humans. We need to understand that the only way our species will continue to grow and live on is to develop new changes and expand our possibilities of the human capabilities.
Bailey, Ronald. “The Twin Paradox: What Exactly is Wrong.” The Human Cloning Debate. McGee, Glenn. Berkeley: Berkeley Hills Books, 1998. 181-188.
Callahan, Daniel and Mary Mahowald. “Ethics of Creation: To Clone or not to Clone.”
Time/CNN Poll, online; 11/9/98. www.pathfinder.com/TIME/cloning/ethics1.html
Fielding, Ellen. “Fear of Cloning Pro-Life Perspective.” The Human Cloning Debate. McGee, Glenn. Berkeley: Berkeley Hills Books, 1998. 215-226.
Hass, John. “Catholic Perspectives Cloning Humans.” The Human Cloning Debate. McGee, Glenn. Berkeley: Berkeley Hills Books, 1998. 205-214.
Hull T. Richard. “No Fear: How a Humanist Faces Science’s New Creation.” Free Inquiry, 17.3 (Summer 1997): 18-20.
Kadrey, Richard. “Carbon Copy.” The Human Cloning Debate. McGee, Glenn.
Berkeley: Berkeley Hills Books, 1998. 253-264.
Lewontin, Richard. “The Confusion over Cloning.” The Human Cloning Debate.
McGee, Glenn. Berkeley: Berkeley Hills Books, 1998. 125-140.
McGee, Glenn, editor. The Human Cloning Debate. Berkeley: Berkeley Hills Books,
National Bioethics Advisory Commission. “Recommendations.” The Human Cloning
Debate. McGee, Glenn. Berkeley: Berkeley Hills Books, 1998. 141-148.
Robertson, John. “Cloning as a Reproductive Right.” The Human Cloning Debate.
McGee, Glenn. Berkeley: Berkeley Hills Books, 1998. 67-82.
Roy, Ina. “Philosophical Perspective.” The Human Cloning Debate. McGee, Glenn. Berkeley: Berkeley Hills Books, 1998. 41-66.
Additional contents of the Human Cloning Foundation website
About the Human Cloning Foundation