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 ortray 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 imes 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 n 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 mportant 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 loning 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 he 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 eplication 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 uman 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 hildren, 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 hild, 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 t 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 etting 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.