Human Cloning: The Ethical Debate Human Cloning

Human Cloning: The Ethical Debate

Human cloning is best described as "the creation of a genetically identical copy of an existing human or growing cloned tissue from that individual" (Wikipedia, 2004). The term usually refers to artificial human cloning; human clones in the form of identical twins are typical and commonplace, with their cloning occurring during the natural process of reproduction.

"human clone" is a scientific replication of another person (Jones, 1998). A clone is not actually an exact replica of the original, but rather a younger identical twin. As with identical twins, the clone and the original person have different fingerprints. They are also likely to have different personalities.

Human somatic cell nuclear transfer, which is commonly referred to as creating an embryo by "cloning," involves the following (McGee, 2001):

The starvation and subsequent implantation of DNA from specialized, non-sexual cells of one organism (such as cells that make an organism's hair or milk) into an egg whose DNA nucleus has been removed.

The resulting egg and nucleus are shocked or chemically treated so that the egg behaves as though fertilization has occurred, resulting in the beginning of embryonic development of a second organism containing the entire genetic code of the first organism -- the clone.

Mammalian cloning, through this nuclear transfer process, has resulted in the birth of hundreds of organisms (McGee, 2001). However, more nuclear transfer generated embryos fail during pregnancy than would fail in sexual reproduction, and a substantial majority of cloned animals who have survived to birth show significant and dangerous birth defects.

In the past, reproduction or replication of an organism's DNA identity has not normally occurred in mammals, with the exception of twinning, which always results in the simultaneous birth of two babies (McGee, 2001). Only plants reproduce through replication from one generation to the next. As a result, the prospect of such replication for humans has become one of most controversial debates about reproduction in our history. This paper aims to dissect the current ethical argument over human cloning, with the intention of proving why this type of research should go forward.

Controversy Surrounding Human Cloning

Opponents of human cloning cite many reasons that human cloning is unethical (McGee, 2001). For one, there are many risks to the first child. In addition, they argue that a type of reproduction with such potential for vanity puts the freedom of children and the nature of the family in danger. Proponents of cloning argue that it may be a new and efficacious treatment for infertility, enabling those who cannot conceive a new way to do so.

Some believe that cloning may violate the freedom of children (McGee, 2001). For example, some say that there is a great deal of risk when it comes to a child's "right to an open future." A child created as a genetic copy of another may feel undue pressure to become like or be the opposite of the first child. Still, the right to an open future is hard to validate by common law or analogy to ethical analysis about parenthood.

There is a great deal of confusion and misunderstanding surrounding cloning in part because it is tied to the ongoing controversy over abortion (Caplan, 2003). Abortion opponents attempt to gain legal recognition for the personhood of an embryo in any way possible. By claiming that cloned embryos are people and that their destruction must be outlawed, they aim to get legal standing for all embryos. A ban on all forms of cloning may lead to bans on the destruction of all human embryos, cloned or otherwise. That would end abortion, in vitro fertilization, and many types of prenatal genetic testing in the United States.

There are many reasons why human cloning is unethical, but, in my opinion, the greatest reason is that it would destroy the way that families and children are created and built. However, looking at the issue from a scientific perspective, the possibilities for humanity outweigh the risks. Human cloning research would allow doctors to determine the cause of spontaneous abortions, give oncologists an understanding of the rapid cell growth of cancer, allow the use of stem cells to regenerate nerve tissues, and advance work on aging, genetics, and medicines (Jones, 1998).

Opponents and supporters agree that at the current time the technology is not safe enough to use on humans (Jones, 1998). However, this does not rule out the possibilities for the future. With additional experimentation on other types of mammals, scientists can reduce the errors and problems associated with human cloning.

Many proponents hold the belief that "no human activity is free of accidental death" and we should not put that burden on human cloning. Dr. Richard Seed, the scientists who has made public his desire to clone babies, believes that cloning technology could extend human life.

However, there is no proof that children cloned from another person will not necessarily feel this way (Jones, 1998). This argument is based on speculations. Supporters counter argue that human clones will "have the advantage of knowing early in life what they are good at."

Seed thinks that human cloning will help humans understand, and eventually reverse, the human aging process (Wikipedia, 2004). A cure for cancer by a better understanding of the cell-differentiation process, as well as better treatments for heart attacks and improved cosmetic surgery, are being cited as being possible with the new technology.