Response to Human Cloning

Human reproductive methods have significantly progressed rapidly of late, and other new methods like cloning have been developed. Human cloning refers to genetically creating an identical imitation of an existing human being or creating cloned tissue out of that individual (Human cloning debate., 2006). Human cloning exists in three forms which include; therapeutic, DNA, and Reproductive cloning. In essence, human cloning has often been viewed as a means of improving genetic endowment of mankind through cloning humans of great achievement such as in music, sports, politics or even science (Nabavizadeh, Mehrabani, Vahedi, & Manafi, 2016). However, the issue of human cloning has raised public concerns. The debate on human cloning has been reinforced with different viewpoints based on moral, biological, ethical, religious, political and medical issues since human cloning emerged in the 1990s. Therefore this paper responds to the socio-scientific issue of human cloning.

Essentially, human cloning is argued to pose serious health issues on humans and there are a number of unaddressed problems harm issue on humans. For instance, a cloned person may develop long-term genetic complications (Nabavizadeh et al., 2016). Moreover, human cloning can lead to dangerous side effects for the cloned person just like other unnatural medical techniques. The usage of milk powder for breastfeeding, conducting caesarian operation during natural delivery amongst others has aroused a number of problems to the cloned people. Human cloning will possess similar side effects and concerns.

Even though cloning enables man to tamper and manipulate human genetics, it however also makes reproduction defects of undesired traits. Cloning can result in serious body parts and organs defects (Human cloning debate., 2006). Nonetheless, cloning can also invite violations in the society. Since cloning allows tempering and manipulation of human genes, some biological geneticists might overstep and inappropriately conduct genetic experiments that can be dangerous to human well-being. For instance, biological geneticists may end up creating an alien out of their genetic experiments which is dangerous to mankind.

Human cloning affects society’s social cohesion negatively. For instance, on the basis of social aspects, human cloning challenges the social responsibility of parenthood as well as the family (Humber, 2010). This will affect the common system and culture of marriage whereby man and women get married then natural procreate by giving birth to children naturally. Human cloning will eradicate the natural way of giving birth to children as people may end up preferring to buy cloned children. This will create moral, religious and cultural conflict in the society. Children produced through cloning may possess psychological issues of identity and individuality. Cloned individuals may be rejected in society and can eventually cause tension within society.

One of the criticisms about human cloning is from Baird who implied that human cloning threatens perception of eccentricity as well as human identity. He further argues that upon creation of a child of a precise genetic makeup, it’s simpler considering the child to being a product instead of the providence price (Baird, 1999). Kass (2002) asserts some psychological effects which a cloned individual is capable of experiencing in the course of his or her lifetime within the society. Cloning will develop serious problems about the cloned individual’s individuality, not only due to similar look to other human beings though also sense that the clone’s twin may be his or her mother or father. Additionally, Kass implied that people within the society will be susceptible to make a comparison between the cloned individual’s performances with her ego’s performance.

Contrary, Evers supported human cloning by criticizing human cloning opponents maintaining that the notion of identity with regards to human cloning is ambiguous (“Psychological and Ideological,” n.d.). Consequently, the assertion that cloning is producing similar persons thus rendered meaningless if only the notion is illustrated. The idea that human cloning affects the cloned individual’s identity and individuality is not clarified. The concept of creation of another human being precisely similar genotype means making other human being with similar traits and identity is actually incorrect. Here the latter is not possible for humans (“Psychological and Ideological,” n.d.). Moreover, hypothetically, biological geneticists one day may create several human beings with precisely similar genotype. The creation of such genetically identical humans cannot result in the production of humans with similar identity and personality. The creation of individuals possessing similar personality and lacking uniqueness is impossible with regards to the evidence from recent research on humans possessing identical or almost the same DNA.

Those defending liberal eugenics asserts parents need to be allowed themselves and improve the children’s genetic characteristics in order to improve their life aspirations (MacKinnon, 2000). For instance, Ronald Dworkin argues that it is not wrong to have ambitions making lives of human beings of future generation longer and more filled with talent thus being more fulfilling (Dworkin, 2000). Actually, he emphasizes the ethical individualism principle to be making these efforts an obligation.

Human cloning is very important and should be encouraged because it causes cures various diseases. Cloning facilitates researching which help in determining medical treatment for diseases and other health disorders (MacKinnon, 2000). Spare embryos should be donated for cloning biomedical research. After all, cloning biomedical research serves all ends in curing disease and as well enable infertile couples to be capable of having children through genetic cloning.

The environment has a significant influence that impacts human beings psychologically. Although genetic aspects takes up about half the alteration of various personality traits, intellect as well as other developing traits, suggesting that environmental aspects are responsible for the remaindering portion (Humber, 2010). So, to assert that cloned individuals are less unique significantly lay off the different and vibrant interacts between the environment and the human mind. Literally, the environment is the influence of somewhat external circumstances or situation impacting the social, cognitive and physical development like the culture, neighborhood, parents and the kind of social organization or institution shaping human experiences (Human cloning debate., 2006). Such external conditions may be influential to family, economic system, social interactions, governments, education and religion in which cloned babies or adult clones will interact with together with other social groups within the society. Additionally, non-genetic biologic aspects like nutrition, being exposed to diseases and maternal aspects when still in the uterus literally are environmental aspects influencing the whole individual development involving genetically-identical twins or even human clones (Humber, 2010). Also, a gene-environment interaction can as well be taken into consideration in explaining identity development, individuality and personality and also human uniqueness created through genetic reprogramming.

Majority of the scientists are in agreement with the statement that human cloning is not safe and probably to result in serious abnormalities as well as birth defects. Though supposing someday, the production of babies via cloning were no longer risky as compare to natural reproduction (MacKinnon, 2000). Majority of the people are believing and I also agreeing that it will remain ethically questionable. The argument based on autonomy is less, not convincing since wrongly suggest that in the absence of a genetically designing parent, the child chooses their own physical traits on their own.  Nobody has the right to choosing our genetic inheritance. An autonomous child is not a substitute for a cloned child, but a child created naturally (Nabavizadeh et al., 2016). The inspiration for controlling the genetic traits of an individual’s offspring directs toward the main core of ethical problems. In essence, the moral issue of reproductive cloning does not lie in its character of asexuality, but on the assault on the children’s perception as gifts instead of possessions or initiatives of our will or our pursuits for happiness.

For reproduction cloning, the notion of autonomy as well as human rights is incapable of solving ethical issues on their own. A cause of difficultness in the equality of moral position perception depends on the fact that, when it comes to natural pregnancies, about half of the implantation of the embryo flops or even get lost (Humber, 2010). In essence, high infant mortality rate cannot justify infanticide. Though the manner in which we are responding to the embryos naturally lose or unanticipated miscarriages is suggesting to us not to consider such activities to be religious or ethical correspondent to infants’ mortality. If not, we would not be carrying out similar burial rituals after losing an embryo which we see through a child’s death (MacKinnon, 2000). Additionally, it is ethically wrong to perceive human beings despite their age as a means to an ending. Those supporting embryonic stem cell researches as well as other embryo research are opposing the special creation of embryos meant for research.

At the moment, much effort is being put by those against human cloning pushing for human cloning to be banned. They are pushing for reproduction to be done through natural ways and not through genetic manipulation (MacKinnon, 2000). Those in support of human cloning are even pushing for laws to protect and provide a framework for efficient and proper human cloning. Significantly, scientists have carried out various researches and still continue to carry out research, proving the significance of human cloning.

Therefore, my stand is that I am against human cloning. I believe that human cloning is ethically wrong. I have to admit that my decision to be against human cloning is partially influenced by my religion, Christianity. According to Christianity, human beings are expected to reproduce through natural means which is through birth. Moreover, I find human cloning being risky to human health and I think it should be avoided and stick to natural ways of reproduction. Nonetheless, human cloning faces a lot of ethical implication from several concerned people and also tough opposition from various religions.  Nonetheless, the limiting consideration is that there is the possibility for cloning a person’s gene, though it is not possible to clone the individual. The individual’s personality, character, and traits instead of physiological and anatomical factors constituting the individual is particularly undetermined by the genotype.