Cloning: Accomplishment or Atrocity of Humanity?
Currently, recovering the loved ones that someone has lost may be a few payments away. According to the article “Cloning and the Human Family: Theology After Dolly” by Allen Verhey, cloning may provide a way to genetically create a copy of a loved one that somebody has lost (Verhey). A clone is a genetic copy of an individual. Scientifically, living beings can be cloned by “transferring DNA from a single cell of an animal into an egg cell and creating a relatively exact copy of that animal,” according to “Genetic Defects Found in Cloned Animals” by Steve Mitchell (Mitchell). It is stated in “Cloning and the Human Family: Theology After Dolly” by Allen Verhey that the society may be able to “clone a sick child to provide that child a twin who could supply materials for transplant” (Verhey). But even though there advantages, many people oppose cloning and believe that cloning humans and animals should be banned. Individuals believe that cloning should be declared illegal because is has a low success rate, many health problems such as infections and deformities arise during the development of the clone, it challenges the worth of an individual, and is similar to playing God.
To begin with, cloning is believed to be inefficient because of the low success rate and the high failure rate. It is stated in the article “What is the Future of Animal Biotechnology?” by Alison L. Van Eenennaam that the “cloning procedure is currently inefficient, with only 1% to 3% of the nucleated egg cells developing into live offsprings” (Van Eenennaam). This statistic helps the audience infer that the cloning procedure must be very expensive. To produce so many embryos must have been expensive. With such a low percentage of success, the audience can also infer that many embryos may have been wasted each time. In additional example is stated in “Dolly’s Death Resurrects Debate on Cloning Ethics” by Rosie Mestel: “to get Dolly, it took 277 tries” (Mestel). A lot of embryos were wasted each time the cloning procedure was done. Many embryos are made during the cloning process and implanted in the surrogate mother, but most of the times, the embryos died. So many deaths of living beings may tug at the heart of the reader. At least 277 embryos were made and 276 embryos were killed. This fact may seem important to some people because they may feel as if 276 lives were sacrificed in order to clone 1 sheep. Clearly, the exorbitant percentage of failure rate is described, but that is not the only problem since the clone is also affected by health problems.
Another view of the people who are against cloning is that it causes problems such as infections, malformations, and deformities during later development of the clone. For example, in the article “The Limits of Cloning” by Nathan Gardels, a statement that a “significant proportion of animals produced by cloning die soon after birth [and] many fetuses never make it to the full term of pregnancy” is presented (Gardels). This fact compels the audience to degrade cloning, making it seem similar to murdering. So many embryos, or potential living beings, are killed in the cloning process and many fetuses die before they are even born. Knowing this fact, some scientists still implant embryos that they know will die, which may compel some of the audience to see scientists who support cloning as murderers. Another example is acknowledged in “Genetic Defects Found In Cloned Animals” by Steve Mitchell when it is mentioned that cloning “impacts the animal’s development and causes all kinds of malformations... and it probably explains why many clones die early, are obese, or have other problems” (Mitchell). This example further supports the comparison between cloning and murdering. Some readers may think that if the cloning procedure is successful, the clone is only subjected to a life of pain and suffering to death. Some may argue that cloning is purposely wanting to make the animals suffer since even though scientists are aware of the fact that cloning will only lead to further health problems, they still continue their progress in the procedure. Therefore, the health problems degrade the concept of cloning in the eyes of many, but the idea that cloning also devalues individualism further degrades cloning.
Furthermore, some people oppose cloning because they believe that it decreases the value of life and an individual. For instance, in the article “Should Human Cloning Be Banned?” by Albert Moraczewki and Arlene Judith Klotzko, it is claimed that “every human embryo is priceless because it is already a human being... the cloning of human beings would lead to confusion of personal identity and worth” (Klotzko and Moraczewki). In the future, if cloning gets easier, the worth of humans might decrease. It is similar to mass production. Every new object’s price is very high to begin with but dramatically decreases when it is mass produced in a factory. If human clones are also mass produced, their value will decrease, that is what worries many people. Moreover, Albert Moraczewki and Arlene Judith Klotzko add that “the result is that each child born has a unique set of genes, which is a reflection of the child’s unique soul” (Klotzko and Moraczewki). Individualism is valued by many in the United States of America. According to this claim, the “unique set of genes” represents an individual (Klotzko and Moraczewki). In the cloning process, the “unique set of genes” is copied, meaning an individual is copied, stripping the individualism from the individual (Klotzko and Moraczewki). Basically, cloning may seem like a process in which someone loses their individuality, devaluing the importance of each human being. Losing their individuality and worth may scare some people but the idea that cloning is like playing God further enhances the argument against cloning.
A handful of religious people, such as priests and theologians, believe that cloning is similar to playing God because some believe that cloning manipulates life and messes with powers that the human race should not be messing with, and ergo are against it. Albert Moraczewki and Arlene Judith Klotzko wrote in their article “Should Human Cloning Be Banned?” that “while the human race is certainly part of creation, it is set apart from the remainder of creation by its God-given dignity... human life is of high value by divine gift” (Klotzko and Moraczewki). Some people believe that the “God-given dignity” is too holy to be replicated and think that by cloning humans or animals, people are playing God. Many believe that playing God is a sin, because some believe that God is too magnificent to be mocked; in other words, cloning itself is a sin. It is believed by some that cloning mocks the creation of God, making it feel as if the human species, the creation of God, can easily be replicated. It is further developed that that if the society makes a “radical change in the means of precreation which God (through nature) has provided, we invite disaster” (Klotzko and Moraczewki). In other words, if a change is made in the natural way of reproduction, destruction will follow. This may remind some readers of World War 2 and Adolf Hitler, who tried to destroy the diversity, “procreation which God (through nature) has provided,” by killing Jews, which ultimately led to his downfall (Klotzko and Moraczewki). Cloning may also lead to destruction, according to some people, just like killing innocent Jews led to Hitler’s downfall. Discrimination may be an effect of cloning which may lead to conflicts in the future, just like Hitler discriminated the Jews which caused a World War. It is thought by some that God is the only one who has the right to create human life, and that anyone other than God who replicates this act is setting his or her level equal to God, which may disturb some religious people. It seems similar to playing God in the eyes of some people, which causes them to see cloning as a sordid act.
In conclusion, scores of people believe that cloning is unethical and should be banned because of the high failure rate, the clone is faced with health problems such as deformities, it challenges the concept of individualism, and is similar to playing God because cloning manipulates life. In an age where technology rapidly is growing, cloning is becoming controversial. In “Cloning and the Human Family: Theology After Dolly” by Allen Verhey, it is noted that cloning may not guarantee that a clone has the exact personality as the being who is cloned, as the environment also affects the way a clone behaves. Today, so many people desire to clone their pets. But the problem may be that the pets may have a different personality, which may anger the owner. Anyhow, there are advantages such as an increase in the food supply and it can help the infertile couples get rid of their loneliness. With the advantages and disadvantages that need to be taken in consideration, a consensus on the limits of cloning may be needed.
Gardels, Nathan. "The Limits of Cloning." Global Viewpoint. 13 Oct. 1999: n. pag. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 13 Nov. 2014.
Mestel, Rosie. "Dolly's Death Resurrects Debate on Cloning Ethics." Los Angeles Times [Los Angeles]. 16 Feb. 2003: A1+. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 10 Nov. 2014.
Mitchell, Steve. "Genetic Defects Found in Cloned Animals." UPI. United Press International, 10 Sept. 2002. Web. 10 Nov. 2014.
Moraczewki, Albert, and Arlene Judith Klotzko. "Should Human Cloning Be Banned." Dallas Morning News [Dallas]. 18 Jan. 1998: 1J+. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 10 Nov. 2014.
Van Eenennaam, Alison L. "What is the Future of Animal Technology?" California Agriculture. July 2006: 132-39. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 10 Nov. 2014.
Verhey, Allen. "Cloning and the Human Family: Theology After Dolly." Christian Century. 19 Mar. 1997: 285-88. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 10 Nov. 2014.