Cloning

Many have imagined what it would be like to have a clone of themselves.
Many have also feared the thought of having a clone. Due to popular belief that a clone
would be an exact duplicate. An incorrect presumption made by many. Proceeding along
side is the religious beliefs and the controversial ethicality and morality aspects of human
cloning. A stance taken by many religions and their congregations. In reality the public has
a very narrow sense of what human cloning is. Rather than research and understand the
scientific aspect of human cloning, they instead take faith in what the media and movies
portray human cloning to be. It is from this information source that a majority base their
decision on weather human cloning is ethical or unethical. Human cloning is a new
challenge for science and that by pursuing it we will become enlightened in who and what
the human being is and its true potential. The truth is that despite the many claims of
religious leaders and anti-cloning protesters, human cloning may truly be the key to curing
all disease and cancers that have plagued humans from the, dawn of human. The questions
is,” Do the benefits of human cloning out weigh the risks and ethicality of society?’
Lee M. Silver, a professor of molecular biology at Princeton University, wrote
“Cloning Misperceptions,” from Remaking Eden: Cloning and Beyond in a Brave New
World. Silver asks, “Why do four out five Americans think that human cloning is morally
wrong?” Silver answers by pointing out that people have a very muddled sense of what
human cloning is. This accredited to the fact many people perceive what they see in the
media and movies and associate it with reality. For example, the movie Multiplicity where
a man has himself cloned and then his clone makes a clone of itself this happens two more
times and each time a clone was made it became less intelligent. This brings up his next
point which was depicted in the movie Blade Runner, many people believe a human clone
would not have a soul, because it would be a replication of a living thing that is still in
existence. Which is not true since a clone child is conceived and birthed like any normal
child would, from a mother’s womb. And just like any other child, the clone would have a
mind and personality of its own. He then informs the reader of possibility of “Brave New
World” Scenario being put into effect. Presenting the idea of a rogue government creating
an army of elite clone soldiers or to create a totalitarian society. Silver concludes that this
scenario is of low probability due the fact that it would require that cooperation of many
women in order to birth to these soldier or totalitarian clones. Silvers article is agreeable
considering the fact that many people believe what they see in the media and movies, many
are not willing to research the subject of cloning to find out what it is. Instead they let the
media and movies decide weather cloning is right or wrong. In actuality seventy percent of
the time the media and movies are bias, only showing one aspect of human cloning.
Which unfortunately happens to be the negative aspect, because it makes the most money
in television and movie ratings. Then there is the claim made by many that human clones
are soulless vessels which is completely incorrect. Once taken into consideration the
human cloning process is quite similar to that of invitro fertilization, both take place
outside of the females body and both embryos are then placed into the mother where they
are conceived, within nine months a child is born just like any other child. Since cloning
brings up the possibility of clone armies or totalitarian cloned states created by rogue
Governments, it should be pointed out that these scenarios are highly unlikely.
Considering that a government would have to gain control of many women to birth these
clones.
The article, The Risks of Human Cloning Outweigh the Benefits is, from Cloning
Human Beings: Reports and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory
Commission. The National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC) believes the risks
that would be involved in producing a child via somatic cell nuclear transfer would out
weigh the benefits. Using Dolly the Sheep as an example, NBAC explains that it is
important to recognize that the technique used to produce Dolly was not successful until
after 277 attempts. The commission proposed that cloning a child would interfere with the
child’s individuality or human right to a unique identity. A point was brought up
concerning the potential harm to important social values, presenting the idea that cloning
would only objectify children and encourage the attitude that children are objects. Stating
that cloned children would only be based on how close they come to meeting parental
expectations instead of being loved for their sake. Another concern was the possibility of
cloning being used for eugenic purposes. By having genes removed and added to
the donor DNA until the desired human traits were assembled into the perfect genome.
The conclusion that was derived by the commission was that cloning is unethical, due to
the fact that such techniques are unsafe at this current time. The NBAC does present some
very important points that describe the risks of cloning a child, but the fact is there will
always be risks weather the technology used is primitive or advanced. Not doing it all is
risk in itself, in that prohibiting cloning could deny the human species the key to finding
the cure for all diseases and cancers. The concerns on weather cloned children will treated
like objects is neither agreeable nor disagreeable for there is no evidence that gives insight
in to how a parent or parents would treat a cloned child. The concern on weather the
possibility of eugenics is agreeable, but hopefully for our sake eugenics will be taken as far
as to only be used for therapeutical reasons, in order to remove cancer causing genes and
other genes that would either disable or disfigure a child.


Many people believe a human clone would not have a soul, because it would be a
replication of a living thing that is still in existence and that a clone is an exact copy of a
person including personality and conscience.


The truth is that a cloned child is the same as any normal child, because both are
conceived and birthed by a mother. Once taken into consideration the human cloning
process is quite similar to that of invitro fertilization, fertilization takes place outside of
the females bodies and both embryos are then placed into the mothers where they are
conceived, within nine months a child is born just like any other child. So yes a cloned
child would have soul. As for clones being exact duplicates of their progenitor not
possible, because genetics are only part of equation in determining who an individual is
there are several other factors in determining a persons personality including education,
environment, and family life. If identical twins have soul than so will clones, because in
actuality clones are nothing more than a later twin of progenitor.
One of the most controversial arguments against human cloning is the belief that
cloning would objectify and hurt or damage the cloned child psychologically. Many
activist proposed that cloning a child would interfere with the child’s individuality or
human right to a unique identity. A point was brought up concerning the potential harm to
important social values, presenting the idea that cloning would only objectify children and
encourage the attitude that children are objects. Stating that cloned children would only be
based on how close they come to meeting parental expectations and how much was spent
on cloning them, instead of being loved for their sake.
The first subject of controversy is the belief that cloning interferes with child’s
individuality or human right to a unique identity. The belief that a child would not have
any relevant sense of identity is completely false. The fact is a majority of people are
referring to the physical identity of the child, intending that the various physical
properties and characteristics that make each individual unique and different from others
determines how they think and act which is untrue. An example would be identical twins
although they are natural clones, because they share the same genetic material, they are
distinct and different from each other both cognitively and personality wise. The point
brought up about the commodification and objectification of a clone is truly determined by
what kind of parent or parents the cloned child has. As for the commodification of
children, the fact is that all reproductive technologies and adoption cost money. This does
not make a baby less valuable to its parents or reduce the amount of love they give it. For
example it would cost between $10,000-$12,000 for invitro fertilization and it would cost
between $25,000-$40,000 to adopt a child, this does not mean that the adopted child
deserves more love than the invitro child or vis-a-versa. It also believed that there would
be a stronger bond between parent and clone. Due to the fact that they share the same the
same genetic makeup. Also the parent would have a better understanding of the clone
child, because in a sense the parent is watching him or her self grow up all over again.
The truth is that anti-cloners are not giving enough credit to parents and the unconditional
love that parents would give there child. Despite what people think all parents have certain
expectations of their children weather: naturally conceived, invitro fertilization, or
cloned. Weather the children meet these expectations or not parents still love their children
unconditionally.


The last argument is one of religious aspects on why cloning should not be done.
The two main reasons is that most people believe that we should not be playing God when
it comes to cloning and that belief that cloning is unnatural. Along with the question
pertaining to do we sacrifice a life in order to further human existence or do we deny
humans the right to new life saving medical technologies created by cloning.
Many people believe that cloning is against God’s will because cloning replicates
an already existing life form and that we should not be playing God. Yet in modern
medicine we play God all the time, instead of leaving matters to “Nature.” The fact that
we use invitro fertilization or that we try to keep a 700-gram newborns alive instead of
letting nature take its course and where culture and religion permit, use donor sperm,
eggs, or embryos. So the question is why is cloning different from other reproductive
technologies? The fact is that we having been playing God for a long time now matter of
fact since the day we created modern medicine. There will always be risks in the medical
field no matter what this should not stop humans from exploring human cloning and the
many technologies that would follow it. Human cloning truly has many benefits such the
ability to reverse the aging process or instead of waiting for a transplant organ it could be
cloned using a stem cell. Or by allowing an infertile couple to have a child or for a child to
be replaced after an untimely death. What having the ability to reverse the effects of a
heart attack by injecting healthy heart cells into the damaged areas. Condemnation of this
new technology could be denying human beings the key to finding the a cure for all
diseases and cancers. And the enlightenment of who and what we are.
The truth is that human clones are just has human as any one else and do not
deserve to be treated like second rate citizens. Clones have souls too and are autonomous
individuals with their conscience and personalities. Parents need to be given more credit in
that they would not objectify their cloned children, but love them unconditionally. Cloning
should not be condemned, due to fear for the unknown, but should be explored to benefit
human kind and enlighten us on who and what we are. Human cloning is a new frontier
that will have its own obstacles and walls to climb over, go around, or go under.
Human cloning will be cherished and prized for what it has brought humanity, new
medical technologies, along with cures for disease and cancer. Unfortunately it is
inevitable, but a sacrifice will be made some where as with many past medical
advancements.Words
/ Pages : 2,109 / 24