Any new frontier in science is a product of experimentation and usually preliminary research in animals. Human cloning is no exception, yet can be categorized in a class by itself. The replication of humans, while thought fanciful to the point of science fiction in the past, has become a modern-day reality. The practice is wholly unethical and fundamentally dangerous. Until research in non-human testing reveals a process that is safe and successful, human cloning should be banned, as it is wrong on both ethical and logistical standpoints.
Human cloning is uncharted territory outside the imaginations of science fiction writers. What we might imagine as an innocuous solution to various genetic diseases, or medical conditions, might also bring a maelstrom of negative consequences for which there is no solution. Cloning would relegate the human existence to that of a devalued individuality, and would objectify children as a thing to be designed, rather than a life to be nurtured; it would also force cloned children into a lesser position in society and bring on a psychosocial challenge unlike any we have ever known.
As if these reasons were not enough, the practice of cloning itself has been historically unsafe, if animal models are studied, and this practice could also result in even more ethically questionable practices (Center For Genetics and Society). From a strictly spiritual standpoint, there is some discussion about whether or not a clone would have a soul, and this calls into question the very nature of our beliefs about what it is to be human, or more specifically, what it is to be a spiritual being having a human experience. According to a religious organization calling themselves Answers in Genesis,
Cloning is in opposition to the Biblical institution of the family. Because a manufactured human clone could never have two parents, the process of cloning would go against the doctrine of the family (i. e. a father and mother) as ordained by God in the Book of Genesis. In a world that increasingly denies the authority of the Bible and its very first book, Genesis, people who view the Creation account as a myth will disregard standards such as the divine institutions of the family and dominion, as well as the sacredness of human life made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27).
Sadly, human cloning will become more acceptable to those who reject the Creator and His Word (Ham and Looy). The notorious Dolly the Sheep, suffered from arthritis at an early age, and died prematurely of lung disease, both thought to be directly linked to mutated genes from the cloning process. Many other cloning attempts in animals have met with failure, and many more never made it to the completed stage, since scientists feared the results would be hideous (Dixon). When a University of Pennsylvania bioethicist was asked if we should have a ban on human cloning, he responded,
Oh, yes. Purely on safety grounds. Put aside whether it’s good to be a clone, whether it’s odd to be a clone, whether it’s strange to be made in someone else’s image, the way this science is right now, not working well in animals, you absolutely don’t want to do it in people. It’s just barbaric human experimentation (Caplan). Patrick Dixon, of Global Change, believes the three biggest reasons to ban human cloning are that the mutation of genes is a severe health risk, that the emotional costs are too high, and that the risk of abusing the cloning technology is too high.
“A particular worry is the possibility that the genetic material used from the adult will continue to age,” Dixon says. “so that the genes in a newborn baby clone could be—say—30 years old or more on the day of birth. ” Dixon goes on to say that there is significant emotional risk to cloned children: Or maybe the child knows it is the twin of a dead brother or sister. What kind of pressures will he or she feel, knowing they were made as a direct replacement for another? It is a human experiment doomed to failure because the child will NOT be identical in every way, despite the hopes of the parents.
One huge reason will be that the child will be brought up in a highly abnormal household: one where grief has been diverted into makeing [sic]a clone instead of adjusting to loss (Dixon). The specter of Hitleresque approaches to cloning, and some evil genius attempting to create a “superior” race at the expense of diversity and the lives of those thought to be lesser—is also a concern. And why would we pursue the slippery slope that human cloning represents, when the use of adult stem cells will provide the same medical benefits?
While there is some debate about whether using adult stem cells is a viable alternative to using embryonic stem cells (Shwartz), the attentions of researchers would perhaps be better served by addressing the problems with adult stem cell extraction and usage, rather than continuing to push for acceptance of embryonic stem cell extraction, and the delay that all the debate will cause.
Works Cited
Caplan, Art. “Bioethicist Says Human Cloning Is Scary. ” CNN: Health. (17 July 2002). 26 November 2006 <http://archives. cnn. com/2001/HEALTH/08/06 /kagan. caplan. cnna/>. Center For Genetics and Society.
“Reproductive Cloning Arguments. ” (30 May 2003). 26 November 2006 <http://www. genetics-and-society. org/technologies /cloning/reproarguments. html#1>. Dixon, Patrick. “Reasons Against Cloning. ” Global Change. 28 November 2006 <http://www. globalchange. com/noclones. htm>. Ham, Ken and Looy, Mark. “The Scientific And Scriptural Case Against Human Cloning. ” Answers in Genesis. http://www. answersingenesis. org/docs2001 /1127cloning. asp>. Schwartz, Karyn. “Stem Cell Basics. ” 14 July 2004. Online NewsHour. PBS. <http://www. pbs. org/newshour/science/stem-cells/cellbasics. html>.