Deceptacle

Cloning tends to be a highly controversial and talked about topic in the area of bioethics. One of the major factors fueling the debate surrounding this subject is its use throughout various media forms, primarily science fiction. Unfortunately, this is often the sole exposure that the general public gets regarding cloning, and so they form a prejudice against a topic that they know little about, and that they are misinformed about.

The myths that surround cloning cause severe damage to the stance that the general public takes regarding its continuation. These myths arise from literature and film, and they are remarkably varied, ranging from the idea that cloned humans are direct copies, including age, personality, memories, and the like, to the idea that clones could be harvested for organs. Many of these myths do share a common root, that being the notion that cloning creates a direct copy of an existing individual. With regards to organ harvesting, by the time a cloned individual would actually be able to use the organ, it would probably already be too late. This fact generally gets overlooked by a layperson though when they formulate their opinion regarding cloning since they do not know any better.

Gregory Pence breaks the formulation of traditional moral arguments into two categories: direct and indirect. Direct arguments tend to involve the actual act and the immediate consequences of cloning, while indirect arguments lean more towards potential future problems, such as social or medical, which may or may not become an issue. The arguments that are used against cloning have aspects of the “yuck” factor, whether through religious beliefs or through instinctual tendencies, as well as concerns for a cloned human's future. Arguing against the “yuck” factor tends to be difficult because it tends to be a highly personal reaction, but as for the future aspect, this is much easier to discuss. One concern is the “right to unique genetic identity.” Pence throws a solid counter in when he asks “since so-called 'identical' twins share 99.9 percent of their genes, is their right to a unique identity violated by being a twin?” (Pence 147). This is a perfect example of why cloning should not be a problem. If the general public could be convinced of the fact that cloning is essentially like having a twin sibling years later, then maybe it would gain more acceptance. One could suppose that mother's would not appreciate this if their children played an April Fool's day joke on them by surprising her with their cloned child, but that shouldn't stop research into the area.

A very real objection to cloning that comes up though is the concern about abnormalities. According to Pence, “a high rate of abnormalities plague efforts to create primates by somatic cell nuclear transfer” (Pence 148). With such risks present, it keeps cloning from being human testable until cloning techniques improve drastically. As the ability to clone other mammals becomes more successful, this argument will lose ground and become a non-issue.

Cloning does have some real potential benefits though, and I personally believe that aside from the limitations on knowledge thus far, there should be no real opposition to cloning. Taking the genetic make up of a healthy adult alleviates much of the burden of worrying about genetic diseases that may be passed on through typical reproductive means. Assuming cloning techniques are greatly improved, it would mean one less thing to worry about for the parents of the child.

Allowing for people to have a child is also a very strong argument for cloning. While adoption is definitely one way to go, it can often be a complicated and difficult process, and many adults prefer to have a genetic bond with their child. Cloning could be viewed as yet another option that adults have for attempting to conceive a child. Whether it's because they waited too long or they are just having trouble conceiving, cloning could be one day added to the list of potential solutions that would ensure a genetic bond with the child, and would have the added known genetic health benefit.

At the very least, since cloning is similar to creating a twin years later, I see no real harm in allowing research into cloning to continue. As long as research is not being done on humans until the techniques are improved, it should not be any more controversial than any of the other reproductive research being done. There will always be naysayers who tout their religion as a logical reason against such research, but that should not be used when creating legislation. There may be some who are just repulsed by the idea of cloning, but I would question their reaction. Such a response should not happen if cloning becomes perfected. If cloning is perfected, a cloned birth would produce a healthy baby who will probably look very similar to the genetic provider. I would think that the age difference would be significant enough that such similarities in looks would not be an issue as well. I could see some repulsion if the age difference was only a few years, but if cloning is used for reproductive means, then that gap would be at least twenty five years at least.

While cloning is still in its early years, there is a lot of mixed feelings surrounding it. Most of these feelings are based off of science fiction and myth, but there are some much more reasonable concerns regarding cloning. As our ability gets better, and cloning become perfected, I would not be surprised to see it used as one of the various ways that a couple could reproduce. The genetic bond that parents and their children share is a strong one and cloning would be just another way in which to achieve that bond.

Download: Response Paper 2