Should Human Cloning Be Authorized

Cloning

Bioethics, which is the study of value judgments pertaining to human conduct in the area of biology and includes those related to the practice of medicine, has been an important aspect of all areas in the scientific field (Bernstein, Maurice, M.D.). It is one of the factors that says whether or not certain scientific research can go on, and if it can, under which rules and regulations it must abide by. One of the most recent and controversial issues facing our society today is the idea of cloning. Dolly the sheep, was the first mammal clone, and was born in February 1997, in Edinburgh, Scotland. After considerable of news coverage, genetic engineering of DNA was in the spotlight. The world has had heatedly discussions over the issues surrounding cloning ever since.

In the past, people have been against the use of these experimental procedures because of the possibility of deadly outcomes. Because not much is known about genetic engineering, this discovery could improve our lives and should be allowed to progress despite the risks it poses and the public outcry against it.

It is true that we are just starting to discover all of the dangers and benefits of genetic engineering and there is a lot of important information that still remains unknown. But instead of seeing the good side of this discovery, the American public has a "growing mistrust of science" (Whitman 1), and a fear of the unknown. Many automatically reject this breakthrough.

Human cloning has the power to cure infertility, which a painful reality that many couples throughout the world face. "The current options for infertile couples are inefficient, painful, expensive, and heart breaking" (Human Cloning Foundation 1). Many couples run out of time and money without successfully having children. According to the Human Cloning Foundation, less than 10% of the current infertility treatments are successful. Human cloning could make it possible for many more infertile couples to have children than ever before by boosting success rates through nuclear transfer of sperm from the father into the mother's egg, thus creating a beautiful unique child.

One point that those against cloning are often worried about is that the clone would have no soul, no mind, no feelings or emotions of their own, no say in how their life will be with their destiny predetermined for them, and that each individual clone would not be unique. They are also afraid that the clone will not be treated like a person, more like a worthless second copy, or a fill-in for what was there but now is lost. Although the genes do play an important part, its the interaction among a person's genetic inheritance, their environment, memories, different life experiences, and the process of learning that results in the uniqueness of each individual (Mario 1997).

Moreover, when we think of making a copy of a person by cloning, we tend to expect that the clone will have the same knowledge and memories as the original. This type of information transfer between individuals is a lot farther from reach than mere physical duplication. It would therefore be unrealistic to expect clones to replace the original individuals.

Nature clones people all the time. Approximately one in 1000 births is an identical twin. However, despite how many or how few individual characteristics twins have in common, they are still different people. They have their own identities, their own thoughts, and their own rights. They enter different occupations, get different diseases, and have different experiences with marriage, alcohol, community leadership, etc. Twins have different personalities, as would cloned individuals. Even if someone cloned several Napoleons, each would be different and even more unique than twins; the cloned child would be raised in a different setting. Therefore, cloning does not rob individuals of their personality.