Why is cloning wrong?
I really do not understand why human cloning is such a hot button subject. The public seems to have gotten their understanding of cloning from movies! First, one doesn't grow a full grown clone in a vat. Secondly, a clone will not have the memories of the original. With present technology, a clone would be born from a woman's womb, just like an ordinary person. One fact that many people do not seem to understand is that identical twins are natural occurring clones. So a clone is essentially a time-shifted twin. In fact, because of differences in the fetal environment of the clone compared to the original, a clone is likely to even look different. (The first cloned cat is an example of this.)
There is at least one compelling reason to do human cloning: infertile couples. This would give them another method of having a child. I have a child myself that was conceived using IVF. I remember when the first test-tube baby was born and all the concerns this created at the time. Now, it is not a big deal at all. Will cloning also become less controversial over time? With the rabid reactions to it so far, I fear not.
Now, at the present time, there is a legitimate reason for banning human cloning: the technology is not ready. The failure rate is high and there is a too high chance of birth defects. But these are not the reasons given for banning cloning.
The irony of the cloning discussion is that many people seem to consider therapeutic cloning as more acceptable than reproductive cloning. I really don't understand the ethics of this viewpoint. Therapeutic cloning starts with the exact same process as reproductive cloning, but harvests the stem cells from the resulting embryo. I don't pretend to know when life begins (or even if this question has a precise answer), but this procedure seems to have many more ethical questions than letting the embryo go to term (assuming that the technology gives the embryo an acceptable chance of no defects).
So if the technology is developed to allow safe human cloning, what is the harm in allowing it? Billionaires who hope to create duplicates to carry on their dynasty will be greater disappointed in the outcome!
There is at least one compelling reason to do human cloning: infertile couples. This would give them another method of having a child. I have a child myself that was conceived using IVF. I remember when the first test-tube baby was born and all the concerns this created at the time. Now, it is not a big deal at all. Will cloning also become less controversial over time? With the rabid reactions to it so far, I fear not.
Now, at the present time, there is a legitimate reason for banning human cloning: the technology is not ready. The failure rate is high and there is a too high chance of birth defects. But these are not the reasons given for banning cloning.
The irony of the cloning discussion is that many people seem to consider therapeutic cloning as more acceptable than reproductive cloning. I really don't understand the ethics of this viewpoint. Therapeutic cloning starts with the exact same process as reproductive cloning, but harvests the stem cells from the resulting embryo. I don't pretend to know when life begins (or even if this question has a precise answer), but this procedure seems to have many more ethical questions than letting the embryo go to term (assuming that the technology gives the embryo an acceptable chance of no defects).
So if the technology is developed to allow safe human cloning, what is the harm in allowing it? Billionaires who hope to create duplicates to carry on their dynasty will be greater disappointed in the outcome!
posted by Paul Carter at 5:45 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home