This paper highlights on the pros and cons of human cloning with a strong stance against cloning. Scientists consider cloning as one of the high technological advances while religious leaders consider cloning as a cunning nature of human beings competing God. We as level grounded/neutral party which stand do we take and why? After thorough scrutiny I am against human cloning. Read through the paper so as to take the same stand or different from mine. Cloning is an asexual type of reproduction where replicate biological materials (i.e animal, plant, cell or gene) are made from one (Rantala ML, Milgram AJ, 8).
There are two major types of cloning: The first one is embryo cloning/artificial turning/parthenogenesis which starts with a standard in vitro fertilization procedure: where sperm and ova from human being are mixed together and put in a blastula. The zygote will be able to divide itself into two, four eight etc. “zona pellucida” (chemical that provides nutrients to the cell to promote cell division) is added.
This is then allowed to grow and develop into twins replicates. DNA Cloning / somatic cell nuclear transfer is the other and was the first method which was used to discover the possibility of cloning. A cell can be taken from a mammary tissue of a mature animal (organ donor) then fused with ovum (without nucleus) then the fused cell is stimulated with electric pulse after which the divided cells are planted into female animals awaiting birth. Human cloning has both advantages and disadvantages.
Some of the outstanding advantages that scientist supports their work with is that: One is able to replace some of the damaged cells with new ones through cloning, Infertile (unable to conceive) beings will be able to bear off springs through cloning. Additionally; diseases such as diabetes, cancer, heart disease and muscular dystrophy have been treated through cell replacement and therapies. However, the disadvantages tend to outweigh these advantages. We will look deeply into the disadvantages and hence take a stand on the basis of major theories that have been put forward on the topic.
These include: Procreative right of couples versus the autonomy of the future clones, evolutionary ethics versus epigenetic, nature versus science and eugenics science movement ethics theory To be precise human cloning was first brought to the public on February 23rd 1997 when Dr. Ian Wilmut of the Roslin Institute in Scotland displayed a seven-month old sheep “dolly” which was as a result of DNA cloning. This was followed by several scientific researches in various countries despite the ban on funding of cloning. These researches included; Serul National University – Korea successfully cloned a calf (February 1998), Dr. Ryuzo Yanagimachi of University of Hawaii cloned a mice (July 1998) and Kinki University in Nara- Japan cloned 8 calves from a single cow (December, 1998).
These are just a few among many. If this is the trend, for what purpose is procreation? Do we foresee the dangers that lie ahead if we continue with human cloning? Do we consider the side effects that are caused to the humanity due to cloning? What drives us towards carrying out human cloning? Are we competing against nature? What does religion say about cloning? Is science more powerful than nature?
These are some of the disturbing questions that need answers. Among the many human cloning theories is nature verses nature theory that tends to weigh which option is important, should we obey the nature by maintaining the procreation procedure where only animals belonging to the same species are given chance to reproduce at the convenient time, chance and numbers without interference with the genes. Science takes the nature law at mercy by operating at the convenience of the technology to an extent of controlling the number, time and modification of nature.
Yet it could be right to be at the control rather than living by the nature but at the same time who and how animals and human were designed. If you are not the designer then why take control at a source which you are not the proponent? Another theory is the procreative right of couples versus the autonomy of the future clones which is a pro-cloning and anti-cloning argumentative theory that weighs on the rights and autonomy involved in human cloning. Eugenics science movement ethics theory is the third theory.
According to Rantala ML, Milgram AJ, 144, in their book Cloning: For and Against; cloning is a means of civilization. It states that “eugenics is thought of as a human ecology which is part and parcel of the environmental movement. It defines humanity not as the totality of the currently living population but as the number of people who will potentially ever live”. Eugenics science movement ethics theory advocates for human cloning as a means of improvement on the civilization of human kind. The last one is the evolutionary ethics versus epigenetic theories
This is a theory that gains its insight from the Darwin’s Theory of evolution and the Hitler’s Theory on making the strong to live. Darwin signifies that evolution should lead to modification while Hitler argues that modification should as a means of genetic improvement. Among the many disadvantages of cloning is abuse of technology. “What would Hitler have done with cloning technology available in 1940? ” In the quest of making a perfect man (who has no definition) people would find the best avenue for misusing the technology.
We would have people made at the interest of the maker which is against God. Gene mutation risks is another disadvantage because some of the world’s pandemics have been due to gene mutation . During this process there are high chances of mutation without notice which may lead to undesirable outcome. Disability in human being has come out as a fact of gene mutation some in the process of cloning. There are high risks associated with cloning to an extent of production of monsters. It is remarkable that out of 237 experiments done by Dr. Ian Wilmut on the “dolly sheep” only one survived .
How many lives would we be loosing through cloning. Cloning is process of uncertainty and so many lives could be lost during the process. Experimentation with the human lives in the name of cloning is dangerous. The clone genes are of age to the donor while we expect it to be a new birth. There is imbalance in the offspring such that it is fixated and cannot survive emotionally under normal growth and development. The “dolly sheep” was found to six years old in his genes, this indicated a disparity nature in its growth. Suppose it was a human being?
It is widely accepted that there is a supreme being that controls the nature and that is God. By the moment we give Science dominance over God then we no longer belongs to Him and we are competing Him which is against the religious ethics. Human cloning is unethical! On humanitarian grounds we cannot be our own creator and maker. We should not arrest nature and take control rather set nature free to take its course. Yes, it is technology, but to what extent will it lead us in the near future: uncontrollable humans, extinction of human kind, undefined creatures or a world of perfect people.
How possible? Somatic cell nuclear transfer cloning is unethical and immoral way of giving life and hence should not be used in the researches and in clinics . This is also supported by U. N general assembly banning on human cloning researches . We should not be involved in illegal practice prohibited. Only therapeutic cloning should be allowed towards the interest of curing diseases of cell disorders.
Works cited
Rantala ML, Milgram AJ, eds. Cloning: For and Against. Chicago, Ill. : Open Court Publishing Company, 1998.