Human Cloning the Cloning of Human Beings

Human Cloning

The Cloning of Human Beings

Cloning is the creation of an exact biological twin generated from the DNA of a donor. In effect, a person creates an exact copy, with the exact genetic sequence, from their own DNA. While the cloning of human beings has been the realm of science fiction, the creation of sheep clones has pushed the idea of human cloning into the range of possibilities. At present, the idea of human cloning is almost universally repulsive, but over time that may no longer be the case. And with the coming reality of human cloning a number of ethical considerations must be addressed. Leon Kass, in his paper entitled "Cloning of Human Beings," presents a number of arguments against the idea of human cloning including (1) the ethical implications of experimenting on human beings, (2) concerns over the identity of the clone and its ability to remain an individual, (3) fear about the possible "manufacturing" of humans, and (4) the impact of cloning on the family unit. On the other hand, Robert Wachbroit, in "Genetic Encores: The Ethics of Human Cloning," presents a rebuttal to the concerns of those who oppose human cloning and discusses the potential benefits of cloning human beings.

Leon Kass presents a case against human cloning that is heavily influenced by the emotional reaction to the idea. His first objection involves the interpretation of cloning as an "unethical experiment on the child-to-be," not only because of the possible mishaps that can occur, but because a future clone could not consent to its creation. (Mappes 566) Secondly, Kass brings up the idea of identity and individuality, and exactly who is the clone, and what is their relationship with the DNA donor and other family members. Kass also thinks that there could be a problem with a clone's individual identity and whether there would be unfair and unrealistic expectations placed on the clone. Next Kass tackles the idea that cloning would transform the very nature of procreation into a mass production industry. Not only would cloning dehumanize the clones, turning them into a "product," but it could also turn the clone into the "property" of the parent; clones may no longer be considered a new life with human rights, but simply a copy owned by some other person. Finally Kass discusses the impact cloning could have on the family unit and how children are now procreated, or made by mixing DNA from two parents, and therefore a new life form, genetically independent of either parent. There is what Kass describes as the "open and forward-looking nature of parent-child relations," which clones, being an exact copy of someone, would not share. (Mappes 568) He asserts that clones would not have the freedom to choose their future, but have their future controlled by another, something that Kass believes is "despotic."

One of Kass' main objections to cloning deals with the issue of identity, and what he calls being "saddled with a genotype that has already lived. He will not be fully a surprise to the world…." (Mappes 568) But Robert Wachbroit rightly points out that a clone is not the result of "asexual reproduction," but simply a twin who's birth has been delayed. Kass believes that the clone will somehow live a repeat of the life of the DNA donor, but Wachbroit explains that because the clone is a delayed twin, it "would be a separate person from her non-contemporaneous twin." (Mappes 572) The idea that the clone would live a similar life to the DNA donor would be to believe in genetic determinism, a belief that is rejected by the majority of scientist. If Kass is correct in this belief, then the lives of millions of identical twins would live parallel lives, something that is simply not the case.