Ethics of Human Cloning Ever since Dolly the Sheep was initially cloned in the latter portion of the 20th century, there has been widespread debate over the ethical issues and the practicality of human cloning. Many points of these issues are elucidated within a pair of essays in which the respective authors argue for and against cloning. John Harris' article, "The Poverty of Objections to Human Reproductive Cloning" examines these points and deconstructs them to illustrate his belief that arguments against human cloning are not valid. Rifkin, however, examines many of the same issues from the perspective that opposition to human cloning is both ethical and pragmatic in lieu of the consequences of such a practice. After a careful analysis of each of the viewpoints of the aforementioned authors, it becomes readily apparent that human cloning should not be permitted largely due to ethical reasons.

Prior to demonstrating the validity of the preceding thesis, however, it is essential to summarize the arguments both for and against cloning. One of the chief facets of these arguments pertains to stem cell research. Stem cell research can provide scientists with insights into genetic predispositions for certain maladies. The implication is that by gaining these insights, people can then use stem cells to eradicate or prevent such diseases from taking place, or to possibly find a cure for them. Stem cell research, however, kills human embryos -- which is why many against human cloning and stem cell research consider this practice unethical if not illegal. Those in favor of cloning, however, believe that by cloning humans and then killing them as embryos to propagate stem cell research they can avoid unethical behavior because they are merely killing the embryo of a clone. Those against cloning and stem cell research point out the fact that even if an embryo were cloned, it still deserves the right to live. Thus, there is the time-honored debate between "right to life advocates and researchers" (Rifkin 143) regarding the ethical implications of cloning.

Another key point addressed within both articles and hotly debated by proponents of either side is the fact that significant progress in stem cell research (which is facilitated by the usage of cloning) warps the process by which life is created. The genetic information contained within stem cells is highly specific. With enough research and success in this field, it could conceivably become possible for parents to 'order' the isolated genes for a red-haired, green eyed-child, or someone who has a proclivity for playing the piano really well, or any other facet of life which has roots in genes and genetic research. Proponents of such a process claim that this form of empowering potential parents merely helps to add fulfillment to their lives. Dissidents believe that such a process is perverse and skews the conventional reproductive methods.

Other points of divergence on this issue include the realm of safety. Those against human cloning cite the fact that the processes whereby cloning is engendered are not refined and may cause harm to the individual how is cloned. Rifkin attests to the fact that the cloning technique is still unsafe and could pose a risk of producing a malformed baby" (Rifkin 142). Those in favor of cloning believe that researchers can perfect the process with enough time and erudition devoted to such an activity, a fact to which Harris alludes (146). Another extremely salient ethical implication regarding cloning is referred to as the "slippery slope" (Rifkin 142). This argument presents the reality that if cloning a person in his or her infantile stages is acceptable (presumably for stem cell research), that the threshold for the age and the use of cloning will eventually spiraling and have no end in sight. Those who are advocates for cloning, however, believe that that they can set firm boundaries and clone responsibly in the name of research.

Now that the conventional arguments for why society should or should not clone humans have been presented, I would like to advance an original argument for researchers should not conduct cloning on any level. Some facets of this argument are alluded to within passages in both Rifkin and Harris's articles. Still, the principle tenet of this argument is original and not fully discussed by these...

The central premise of this argument is the fact that society should not condone human cloning for the simple fact that such a phenomenon does not occur in nature. As such, it is decidedly unnatural, and actually leads people into engaging in further acts that are not natural. Because human cloning is not a natural phenomenon and actually supplants several natural phenomena (the most salient of which is childbirth or a process in which "the gift of life" is steadily marginalized and eventually abandoned altogether" (Rifkin 142), is should not be practiced.
This argument bears some similarity to the theological argument that opponents of human cloning use. The crux of this latter argument is summarized in the subsequent quotation.

From time immemorial we have thought of the birth of our progeny as a gift bestowed by God and/or a beneficent nature. We celebrate our generativity and revel in being participants in an act of creation. The coming together of sperm and egg represents…surrender to forces outside of our control (Rifkin 142).

Even though this passage refers to the concept of nature, it is largely theological in nature and is akin to the viewpoint that God has an overarching plan, parts of which humans can actualize by procreating with one another. The fallacy with such a theological argument, of course, is the fact that the god of one individual is not the same as the god for another, and different gods -- in the form of religions, which are nothing but man's attempts to dictate behavior based on theology -- sanction different actions. This fallacy does not apply to the argument that human cloning does not occur in nature, which is why it should not occur at all. The only way to produce a person is through procreation. Other means of creation, be they as fantastic as Victor Frankenstein's monster in Mary Shelly's gothic horror Frankenstein, or as realistic as cloning human embryos, are decidedly unnatural. In the case of the latter, the artificial environment in which scientists and researchers control embryos and manipulate them to produce others is very far from natural. The process itself is unnatural, and the result of such a process, the new human being, is highly unnatural itself.

As such, one can successfully argue that the current propensity for science to facilitate human cloning is part of a larger movement in which man has continually attempted to battle and tame nature to suit his own needs. Human cloning is decidedly at variance from the conventional ways in which man has attempted to usurp nature, which might include building a lasting domicile during a rain storm, or constructing a sea vessel well enough to withstand the most turbulent of maelstroms. Human cloning effectively represents mankind's desire to create nature itself. In natural life, man's only role as creator is as a procreator of life, or as an artist or an artisan. Yet with the advent of human cloning, man is attempting to reconstruct the natural rules of life so that they are effectively bent to man's own liking. In his role as creator via human cloning, man is no longer a scion of nature. Instead, he is an enabler of nature, of beings alive within an environment which he can shape. A look at the history of virtually any culture reveals that man has had enough problems in the form of warfare, murders, and crime simply dealing with people created naturally. One can only wonder at how many more such complications will occur with people cloned and designed for specific purposes.

It is this facet of the unnatural aspect of life that human cloning would quite literally engender which is the most troublesome, ultimately. Cloning would give man too much power over his environment in a way that is far from that which he has always had in nature. These implications regarding the immense power that mankind would have -- or, more accurately, that specific members of mankind would have while cloning -- is certainly alluded to Rifkin's article. The authors spend a good deal of time elucidating the patent history of cloning and explaining its ramifications for stem cell research. The problem with patenting cloning and aspects of stem cell development and the surplus of power it gives to companies and the nations which house them, let alone the individuals who work in the former is demonstrated in the subsequent quotation.

Secondly, should companies like Geron and Advanced Cell Technology be allowed to own -- in the form of intellectual property -- the primary human cells that are the gateway to the entire biological composition that constitutes human life? (Rifkin 144).

The author appears to oppose what is in actuality a rhetorical question due…