Cloneing+Cons

Cloning may reduce genetic variability, Producing many clones runs the risk of creating a population that is entirely the same. This population would be susceptible to the same diseases, and one disease could devastate the entire population. One can easily picture humans being wiped out be a single virus, however, less drastic, but more probable events could occur from a lack of genetic diversity. Cloning may cause people to settle for the best existing animals, not allowing for improvement of the species. In this way, cloning could potentially interfere with natural evolution.

Cloning is currently an expensive process. Cloning requires large amounts of money and biological expertise. Ian Wilmut and his associates required 277 tries before producing Dolly. A new cloning technique has recently been developed which is far more reliable. However, even this technique has 2-3% success rate.

Cloning might have a detrimental effect on familial relationships. A child born from an adult DNA cloning of his father could be considered a delayed identical twin of one of his parents. It is unknown as to how a human might react if he or she knew he or she was an exact duplicate of an older individual.

Cloning could one day in the future be possible and safe but until then cloning humans is both far too dangerous and far too expensive.

1. The number of men and women who do not produce eggs or sperm at all is very small, and has been greatly reduced by modern assisted-reproduction techniques. If cloning could be perfected and used for this limited group, it would be all but impossible to prevent its use from spreading. Further, this argument appropriates the phrase "genetically related" to embrace a condition that has never before occurred in human history, one which abolishes the genetic variations that have always existed between parent and child.

2. Even if cloning were safe, it would be impossible to allow reproductive cloning for lesbians or gay men without making it generally available to all. Policy and social changes that protect lesbian and gay families are a much more pressing need.

3. Throughout history, parents who have lost children have grieved and sought consolation from family and community. "Replacing" the deceased child by cloning degrades and dehumanizes the child, its replacement, and all of us.

Supporters of cloning feel that with the careful continuation of research, the technological benefits of cloning clearly outweigh the possible social consequences. In their minds, final products of cloning, like farm animals, and laboratory mice will not be the most important achievement. The applications of cloning they envision are not nightmarish and inhumane, but will improve the overall quality of science and life. Cloning will help to produce discoveries that will effect the study of genetics, cell development, human growth, and obstetrics. Human cloning is not the issue, it is merely a threat to the continuation of cloning research. Their arguments for such research are displayed here.

People are most often confused with cloning pros and cons that that they cannot distinguish what the benefits of cloning are what are the obvious drawbacks. One primary benefit of cloning is the ability of couple who have fertility problems to bear a child. This is one aim of reproductive cloning which is much unappreciated by people. To parents who have the ability to conceive children, cloning may be a problem. However to married couples who have tried their best to reproduce in the most natural way, the ease by which they can produce a child through the cloning process is the perfect and most suitable plan for them. Therapeutic cloning is geared towards further discovery of the human body and its respective organ systems. Cloning facilitates the detection and identification of how certain diseases and genetic abnormalities occur in some individuals. Since the process of cloning will enable scientists to develop and grow tissues and organs, doctors can now utilize these cloned parts as part of their research into pathophysiology and medicine.

Since Scottish reporters reported the successful cloning of the sheep Dolly in 1997, many biologists as well as the public have been debating over whether the cloning of human beings was a possibility. In the Summer of 1999, reports came in of the first cloned human embryo. Chicago physicist Richard Seed announced his plans of how he was going to clone a human being. His proposal was debated among the media and most of it was negative criticism. Even President Clinton joined the debate pledging to outlaw both public and private cloning operations. In a radio address he argued, "Personally, I believe that human cloning raises deep concerns, given our cherished concepts of faith and humanity." In July 1997, the President's National Bioethics Advisory Committee issued a report in which it concluded that human cloning should not be attempted by anyone. House of Representatives Majority Leader Dick Armey, a republican from Texas, also called for an end to human cloning. On "Fox News Sunday," he said, "I think this is a nasty business, something that we should not be messing in." Since then, many anti-cloning bills have been introduced on Capital Hill and passed. Thus cloning of humans is certainly disliked by government officials and is illegal in the United States. Many other negative aspects about human cloning have been debated among scientists and critics. One aspect is the possibility of physical harm to the human embryo. They see that technology is not safe enough to use on humans. Some are also afraid that clones will age quicker since the cell used in the cloning procedure has already been used in a real life individual. Opponents also argue that psychological harms could fall upon children. They could suffer from a reduced sense of individuality, and a cloned child may feel that their future is worth less as it now rests in a cloned individual. Also critics argue that cloning encourages parents to value how well children can genetically meet their expectations rather than loving them for being just their children. Also with cloning humans, parents and society may now see their children as objects and not as human beings with actual feelings. It is also seen that if human cloning becomes a reality and a regular social practice, parents who want to "play the lottery" and not genetically choose their child may be cast out of society. It is also argued that we should not use scarce resources in order to concentrate on cloning when there are more pressing issues such as curing diseases. Cloning human beings is a very interesting issue to debate and raises not only technological issues, but also ethical ones as well. Many people have debated this issue in a religious or philosophical manner. In the final topic, I will deal with this issue.

The issue of human cloning may violate moral or human rights. It is seen that every human has a right to have a unique identity and a right to ignorance about one’s future or to an “open future.” This could easily be disputed because of the nature of identical twins. They share the exact same genome but have different lives and futures. The right to ignorance and an open future is a separate issue. There already exists another version of the clone and they already know certain things about themselves and the future they have to live up to. The later clone will lose the spontaneity of authenticity creating and becoming his or her own self. One will lose the sense of human possibility in freely creating one’s own future.

Cloning could also produce psychological distress and harm in the clone. The clone may feel that their life may already be laid out before them and have no choices. This may cause a lot of psychological harm to the clone. They will also face psychological problems and discrimination because of the press about their identity.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Human cloning procedures would carry unacceptable risks to the clone. The procedure is far from perfected and many trials were run before Dolly was ever created. This causes the death of many clones before it. There are many risks involved including risk to an ovum donor, a nucleus donor, and a woman who receives the embryo for implantations, along with all the risks to the clone in this experimental procedure. There is also the problem with chronological age versus biological age. The clone has already gained many years by the time it was born because it was taken from adult cells. This means the clone does not have as long of a life expectancy. This is an intrusion of the clone’s right to live a long and prosperous life.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Human cloning would lessen the worth of individuals and diminish respect for human life. Human life would be seen as replaceable. If something happened to a person, like if they were killed, another clone could simply replace it. In fact, it would create a different child and could never replace the one that is lost. Clones would also be subject to discrimination based on the fact that they are a clone and did not arise because of sexual reproduction.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Human cloning might be used by commercial interests for financial gain. The embryos could be bought and sold, which would lead to financial gain. This could lead to class discrimination on the eggs available. Only the rich could afford the “best” children. Poor families would have to settle with eggs that are damaged or imperfect.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Human cloning might be used by governments or other groups for immoral and exploitative purposes. Any use of human cloning for such purposes would exploit the clones solely as means for the benefit of other, and would violate the equal moral respect and dignity they are owed as full moral persons.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Human cloning used on a very widespread basis would have disastrous effect on the human gene pool by reducing genetic diversity and our capacity to adapt to new conditions. Like many cloned plants, human may face extinction if evolution is not allowed to follow it’s proper course of action.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #000000; display: block; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;">Scientists are trying to develop a genetically modified pig from which tissues and organs can be harvested. Of all successfully cloned animals, pigs are most genetically similar to humans. However, according to embryologist Ian Wilmut, this process risks the possibility of releasing pig viruses into the human population.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #000000; display: block; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;">Scientists are trying to develop a genetically modified pig from which tissues and organs can be harvested. Of all successfully cloned animals, pigs are most genetically similar to humans. However, according to embryologist Ian Wilmut, this process risks the possibility of releasing pig viruses into the human population. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #000000; display: block; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;"> <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #000000; display: block; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;">The concept of cloning animals dates back a long time. Says the Human Genome Program, "In 1952, the first animal, a tadpole, was cloned. Before the creation of Dolly, the first mammal cloned from the cell of an adult animal, clones were created from embryonic cells. Since Dolly, researchers have cloned a number of large and small animals including sheep, goats, cows, mice, pigs, cats, rabbits, and a gaur. All these clones were created using nuclear transfer technology."

CONS Cloning may reduce genetic variability, Producing many clones runs the risk of creating a population that is entirely the same. This population would be susceptible to the same diseases, and one disease could devastate the entire population.

Cloning may cause people to settle for the best existing animals, not allowing for improvement of the species. In this way, cloning could potentially interfere with natural evolution.

There is a risk of disease transfer between transgenic animals and the animal from which the transgenes were derived.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #000000; display: block; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;"> The production of clones is a concern, but also what to do and how to interact with a successfully cloned child. According to Genetic Encores: “The ethical issues of greatest importance in the cloning debate, however, do not involve the possible failures of cloning technology, but rather the consequences of its success” (Genetic Encores 1). The issue of a clone’s identity poses a problem for future clones. What is their purpose? Many individuals have been perceived as wanting a clone to live the life that they didn’t have, bringing back lost memories of relatives, and being responsible for designer children. Cloning is no more than a possibility for people to explore themselves. They try to compensate for lost time through their future clones, a condition that people may have seen in parents that force their children to live the dreams that they were unable to live. The individual is being violated of a “right to an open future,” (Genetic Encore 2). The clone is given a model to live by and whether or not they are able to achieve the act of living up to this example, is harsh and detrimental. If any person were asked to live up to the expectations of their parents, completely and whole-heartedly, most people would feel angry and depressed of the thought. Their lives would be hampered and constantly measured according to their natural human example. The clone has no individuality as technology has presented them. The titles that are given to them alone, will give them a lasting stigma as they go on through life. Being called children of unnatural birth, test-tube babies, or freaks of nature, a mere carbon-copy, or a clone, will prove to induce many psychological problems. The use of the word clone in this paper is enough to degrade their status from human to animal. To add, cloning can also be called: “asexual reproduction,” (Genetic Encores 3), and so the issue of “who is the parent,” (Genetic Encores 3), is also raised. Take children of foster homes, or orphanages and consider the malice, confusion and enmity they feel for not having parents, and apply the situation to a clone with no exact parents, because they were actually a cell taken from a sister or cousin? Being born a clone is one thing, but living as a clone is an idea that has not been clearly thought through. What rights would they have and what options would they be given in life to succeed? They have the right to life, but they also have the right to death and being born normal. So if they are born with defects, what are they to do, slap their parents with a legal suit for giving them life? Technically, it is possible because of the grief the parents will have laid out for the child as they were to grow up. Similar to how minorities were and still are treated in this country, their life value will be less because they are not natural. Take a bag of jelly beans, the more of one color there is, the less likely for us to pay attention to them. When we run out of that particular one, we can just make more. Science is creating a whole other class of people by trying to create clones and eventually, it may even spur ethnic wars between natural and cloned humans.Living with the fact that you are just a genetic creation of a group of scientist is not a comforting thought. These are only the mental repercussions that must be thought about concerning cloning. The physical cons to cloning are even worse.