Free Essay About Human Cloning

Introduction

A time was there when infertile couples were left with the only option of adoption to complete their family. However, the progress of science now has not made it possible for infertile couples to procreate through surrogacy and in-vitro fertilization. Cloning, which is the practice of duplicating an exact genetical copy of a living entity in a laboratory setup, is often deemed as another means of procreation (CRF, 2007). Categorized into two types, therapeutic and reproductive cloning, the process of cloning was invented by a Scottish scientist Ian Wilmut, who together with his colleagues created a cloned sheep called Dolly from a lone adult cell of her mother (Kaku, 1998). Dolly was the result of reproductive cloning, which has triggered a rage of controversy ever since, because it has brought about the possibility of cloning human beings in the near future.
On the other hand, therapeutic cloning lays focus on developing stem cells that will contribute to the development of specialized cells of various parts of the body, including blood, nerves, bone, muscles, and skin. Both of these clonings are controversial, especially reproductive cloning because it has the potential to disrupt nature and violate the basic human rights. After the creation of Dolly, many genetic reproductions of animals like dog, cat, mouse, pig and horse have been manufactured, but owing to the banning imposed on human reproductive cloning by different countries, including Canada, Colombia, Australia, and United Kingdom, human clone has not yet been created (CRF, 2007). Though there is a dichotomy of opinion on whether or not the banning of human cloning is justified or not, I would argue in this paper that the imposition of banning on human reproductive cloning is justified, because human reproductive cloning counters the natural process of creation, demeans humanity, denies the fundamental right to life, and subjects human beings to experimentation like guinea pigs.

Disruption of the Natural Process of Procreation

Cloning is often compared to the process of in-vitro fertilization by the proponents of cloning. However, comparing it with IVF is inappropriate as cloning opposes the natural procreation process in which a life is formed of the cells of a male and female partner. The proponents argue that the birth of Louise Brown, the first test tube bay, in 1978 created a huge buzz, but two decades later, IVF has turned into a regular means of procreation among childless couples (Morales, 2009). The proponents' argue, however, does not hold ground as the final output of cloning completely differs from that of IVF. In the case of IVF, the fertilization of the egg of a female donor by the sperm of a male donor takes place outside the body just as what happens in the natural process of reproduction inside the body, but in the case of cloning, the genetic material from a single adult cell of a living being is injected into an egg whose genetic information has carefully been removed (CRF, 2007). Through a controlled surge of electricity, the egg is then fertilized. The final output of cloning is an embryo, which is a photocopy of the organism it has issued from, whereas the final outcome of IVF is an embryo unique in itself with an individual identity of its own.

Degradation of Humanity

The general assembly of the United Nations (UN) made an announcement in its declaration in 1998 that practices contrary to human dignity, such as the reproduction of human beings through cloning would not be permitted (Weldon, 2002). Cloning demeans human dignity by creating genetic replicas of a donor. The uniqueness of each individual created through the natural means of procreation is completely destroyed in cloning. However, people in support of cloning argue that clones are like two identical twins that have separate individual identity, because the clone and his or her donor would be raised in a time period different from each other. Even if we concur that clones are two separate entities with individual personality of their own, it is undeniable that cloning evokes the possibility of creating a generation of human beings identical in appearance (Morales, 2009). The legalization of human cloning would put the unique appearance of every human being under threat as every second person would look alike. Cloned human beings and factory manufactured identical toys cannot be differentiated.

Denial of the Fundamental Right to Life

Cloning is a denial to the fundamental right to life. The process involved in creating human clones would need a large-scale scientific experimentation with the risks of several failed attempts. The creation of the clone of Dolly was preceded by 276 failed attempts (Kaku, 1998). A majority of the scientists believes that human cloning would result in even higher number of failed attempts, leading the destruction of a good many human embryos. A human embryo is a life in formation, and hence, sacrificing it in the name of scientific experimentation is similar to denying fundamental right to life (Morales, 2009).

Reducing Human Beings to the Subjects of Scientific Experimentation

The human rights are also violated by cloning because cloning reduces human beings to the condition of guinea pigs for experimentation. Just as scientific experimentation slaughters innumerable guinea pigs, cloning would reduce human beings to the same condition. People in favor of cloning argue that the banning imposed on human cloning impedes the progress of biomedical research for the future, and that allowing human cloning would help in gathering knowledge about genes to fight diseases (Morales, 2009). However, allowing cloning would lead to terrible violation of human rights as the experiments of cloning would trigger unknown genetic mutations and birth defects. The cloned human beings are entitled to the same legal rights and privileges extended to a normal human being, and therefore, their sacrifice for scientific advancement would be utterly inhumane.

Conclusion

Cloning, which involves the process of creating a genetic photocopy of a living organism, is often deemed by many as another means of procreation. The supporters of cloning argue that the imposition of banning on human cloning by different countries is unjustified because the banning creates an obstacle for scientific advancement. Regardless of what the proponents claim, there is no doubt that the banning is completely justified, because cloning degrades humanity by creating genetic replicas of living organisms and destroying the individuality of each life, goes against the natural means of procreation, denies the fundamental right to life by sacrificing human embryos in the name of scientific researches and reducing human beings to the condition of guinea pigs as the subjects of experiment. Undeniably, human cloning has the dangerous potential to jeopardize the very source of human existence - the process of procreation.

References

Constitutional Rights Foundation (CRF). (2007). Deliberating in Democracy - Cloning. Retrieved on 2nd February 2015 from <http://www.did.deliberating.org/lessons/documents/DID%20Cloning_2011.pdf>
Morales, N. M. (2009). Psychological and Ideological Aspects of Human Cloning: A Transition to a Transhumanist Psychology. Journal of Evolution and Technology. 20 (2) Retrieved on 2nd February 2015 from <http://jetpress.org/v20/morales.htm>
Kaku, M. (1998). Visions: How Science Will Revolutionize the 21st Century. Anchor.
Weldon, D. (2002). Why Human Cloning Must Be Banned Now. The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity. Retrieved on 2nd February 2015 from <https://cbhd.org/content/why-human-cloning-must-be-banned-now>