Are disgust and fear of human cloning a legitimate scientific objection?

This article discusses whether disgust and fear of human cloning is a legitimate, scientifically-based objection, and argues that the debate about cloning technology should be informed by objective, realistic judgment rather than emotional reactions.

 

The Dolly the sheep cloning experiment was introduced to the world on February 24, 1997, and many scientists and the public became interested in somatic cell cloning. Over time, cloning technologies have become more publicized, but there are still people who have inexplicable aversion and fear of human cloning. Leon Kass, a renowned biologist, once said that “revulsion at cloning is the only voice left to cry out in defense of the core of humanity.” As such, some people still oppose human cloning as abhorrent. But is this disgust really a convincing argument for opposing human cloning? I’d like to discuss whether people’s aversion to human cloning can objectively be used to deny human cloning.
Could somatic cell cloning technology be used to create a cloned human with the same genes as me? Let’s try to put into words the ideas that people who object to human cloning because of their aversion to it have. Perhaps the phrase “needy children,” which is how the scientists in this book refer to the children created by somatic cell cloning, is the best way to describe them. Like the scene in the movie The Island where cloned humans are created for organ transplants, cloning technology is used to exploit people with the same genes as themselves as expendable. People would shudder in disgust and fear, imagining the degradation of human dignity. However, despite what people imagine, the current progress of somatic cell cloning research is very unrealistic. Cloning a human being through a combination of somatic cell cloning and genetic engineering is theoretically possible, but it is currently in the realm of dreams. Even if it were possible in the future, there are many factors that influence the expression of human traits, not only genes but also life experiences, so the idea that we could create cloned humans through gene cloning alone is a leap of faith. In the end, much of the aversion and fear that people have toward human cloning is based on assumptions that lack scientific support. Many stories and discussions are based on these unproven premises, which pulls the wool over people’s eyes and prevents them from seeing the current state of human cloning technology, its prospects, limitations, and countermeasures. If the negative aspects of human cloning are discussed without objective evidence and judgment, it will only lead to preconceived notions and prejudices about cloning technology. Not only that, but it also ignores the positive aspects of human cloning.
Another mistake often made by opponents of human cloning is to muddy the waters by presenting emotional arguments as if they were objective facts. In fact, the main body of the book takes issue with looking at human cloning in terms of utility, and cites the commodification and loss of dignity of human beings as a reason to oppose human cloning. Chapter 5, for example, argues against asexually reproducing humans, citing the loss of individual uniqueness and the parent-child bond. Underlying this argument, however, is a long-standing sentiment of public disappointment and disgust. Chapter 3 also fails to explain why there is an inherent revulsion to human cloning. Instead, it argues that we should take it as an instinctive warning, much like our abhorrence of incest. In the end, it characterizes human cloning as a violation of nature, a departure from the natural human way. Opponents of human cloning assign subjective values to nature and human nature. This approach fails to provide an objective and scientific explanation for the feelings of disgust and instinctive opposition to human cloning. In the end, this emotionally charged discussion lacks logical persuasiveness and validity.
You may be reading this essay and thinking that I am against human cloning. However, this essay is not about my opinion on human cloning, but rather about the conditions and attitudes that should be used to form an opinion. So, what are the conditions for a legitimate argument against human cloning? A scientific and realistic view of the technology of human cloning. It should be based on a sober judgment of the extent to which genetic manipulation and human cloning are technically and realistically possible, with appropriate limits. Furthermore, the debate about human cloning is fundamentally about the appropriateness of a technology that does not yet exist. Therefore, more than any other debate, it is naturally based on images and ideas that are ingrained in our minds. In this process, we have to question whether we are discussing unrealistic possibilities that are not objective as if they were realizable. Within this framework, we need to examine the different possibilities and make objective estimates of the problems that some of them might cause. Then, we can begin to consider solutions and countermeasures, as well as the moral issues that these possibilities might raise.