Is Human Cloning a Blessing or a Disaster? Should we be for or against human cloning?

In this blog post, we’ll take a look at human cloning and discuss the arguments for and against it.

 

In 1997, Dolly the cloned sheep was born. Her birth captured the world’s attention and marked a major milestone in biotechnology. Up until that point, it was common knowledge that you couldn’t clone an already grown mammal, but this sensational event meant that human cloning could become a reality, and human rights organizations were against it. As you can see, the technology of “human cloning” is highly controversial. This is due to the nature of human cloning.
To be precise, human cloning means cloning a human embryo, which is the state of cell division after the fertilization of a sperm and egg but before it develops into a fetus, and giving birth to a human being with the same genes. The current method of human cloning is nuclear transfer. Nuclear transfer involves removing the nucleus of a mature, unfertilized egg and replacing it with a nucleus from a specialized cell in adult or embryonic tissue. Since all the genetic content of a cell is contained in its nucleus, the egg with the replaced nucleus and the resulting individual are genetically identical to the organism that was the source of the transplanted nucleus, meaning that an infinite number of genetically identical individuals can be created by nuclear transfer. In principle, any person could be cloned using this method, and even a dead person could be cloned, since cells can outlive their source organisms in laboratory culture and tissue storage. Wilmert and his colleagues, who created Dolly the cloned sheep, found a way to reprogram the state of the DNA in the provided cells, returning them to their original differentiated state and restoring their full developmental potential, allowing them to lead the entire process of producing a mature organism again. In other words, the process of somatic cell division can be reversed to the time before each cell was differentiated, making it a primordial cell. So, in summary, the current research is not about creating a human being through the fertilization of a sperm and an egg, but rather through the somatic cell division of a single cell.
The field that would benefit the most from human cloning would be medicine. Currently, stem cells are being actively researched, and stem cells are a type of cloning. Stem cells are cells that are in a pre-differentiated state before they can differentiate into tissues, and they’re gaining attention because of the therapeutic effects they can have on damaged tissues. Proponents of cloning research argue that it should be continued because stem cells can be obtained. If human cloning allows us to have an individual with the same genes as ourselves, then in an emergency, such as when we have a problem with a particular organ, we can receive an organ from another individual, which can cure the disease immediately and contribute to increasing human longevity. The problem here is the human rights of the individual. This issue is explored in the movie Island, where the two main characters are clones of someone and live in isolation from the outside world. Their sponsors think that they are simply surviving, like any machine, but because they have the same genes as their sponsors, they are able to think and live like them. In this case, how should the human rights of cloned humans be considered? Should they be recognized as human beings? If so, it would defeat the original purpose of cloning them. Recognizing them as persons would mean that things like their organs would no longer be available for the original person to use at will.
In general, there are two kinds of objections to human cloning based on the rightness or wrongness of the act. The first is the essentialist view that human cloning is inherently bad. Advocates of this view point to the naturalness of sexual reproduction and say that cloning that results in the creation of life through asexual reproduction is inherently wrong. Indeed, a child born asexually would have no individuality, and the nature of the bond with its parents would be unrecognizable. In the March 13, 1997 NBAC, Mailander argued that genetic uniqueness is important not only to individuals but also to their parents, saying

“Our children are born with a kind of genetic independence from us, from their parents, from the beginning. They copy neither their father nor their mother, which in turn reminds us that we must recognize their independence and that it is our duty to prepare them for it. It would not be good for the child if we forget, even in principle, that the child is a gift entrusted to us.”

Therefore, they argue that any form of research that interferes with normal sexual reproduction should be de-emphasized. The second is the consequentialist view that the consequences of cloning are bad. This is the most weighty moral objection to cloning, which can be broken down into two parts: the safety of the process is in question, as cloning a human being can cause physical or genetic damage to the child, and the psychological scars of unrealistic parental expectations and identity confusion. However, we cannot abandon nuclear replacement technology (cell fusion) because it is the only way to understand the genetic basis of cancer, and it is the only way to treat dangerous genetic diseases such as cancer.
Molecular biologist Leon Kass argued that any attempt to clone a human being would mean unethical experimentation on the unborn child, with serious risks of failure and deformity, as confirmed by animal experiments. Furthermore, given the very meaning of the word cloning, it is unthinkable that a future baby, even if healthy, would consent to being cloned. Therefore, ethically speaking, we don’t even know if cloning humans is justified, he says, emphasizing the dangers of human cloning. Gregory Pence, on the other hand, argues that the counterargument that cloning humans would be harmful is sometimes unjustified. “Overall,” he says, “from genetically modified tomatoes to livers grown in pigs for transplantation into human bodies, we’re doing very novel things to save human lives, we’re crossing natural barriers, and we hardly blink an eye at those things, so why are we so worried about somatic cell nuclear transfer?” Gregory Pence argues that we shouldn’t set the bar too high for human cloning, given the acceptance of high embryo loss rates in normal reproduction and in vitro fertilization.
While I acknowledge that human cloning technology has some notable advantages, it also has a number of distinct problems. I support the consequentialist view, and here are some of the problems I see with human cloning. First, there is the issue of human rights violations, such as the example above. If human cloning becomes possible, there will be a tendency to not value life. Life is precious because it’s temporary and available to everyone equally. However, if human cloning were to occur, human life could theoretically be extended indefinitely, which could lead to the problem of not valuing life. In fact, some opponents of human cloning worry that the resulting child would be treated as an object rather than a person. This can be caused by the objectification of human beings by perceiving them as creating rather than giving birth. Second, the misuse of biotechnology can cause more serious problems than the misuse of any other technology. Because cloning technology creates a life, if it is used for the wrong reasons, it will cause serious problems. For example, if you become involved in criminal activity, you could unknowingly create another individual and become a wrongfully convicted criminal. It’s easy to see how this would have a devastating aftermath. Thirdly, human cloning will be inseparable from genetic manipulation, and there will be a tendency to pursue a more perfect human image. This will exacerbate the problem of discrimination. Just as we have had problems with racism in the past, cloning humans will create individuals with good genes, which will cause problems by separating them from children with bad genes. This can be thought of as a problem related to eugenics, but if human cloning becomes possible, this problem will become more severe, and it is one of the problems created by human cloning because it is inseparable from human cloning.
I am critical of human cloning. As we’ve seen, cloning technology has great medical implications and the potential to improve the quality of human life. However, it is a technology that requires great care and caution because it involves the life of an individual. It is a technology that, when used well, can expand our horizons, but when used badly, the damage can be irreparable. There are also unknown problems with this technology that we don’t yet know about. Human cloning technology could shape the future of humanity, so it’s important to think about it carefully rather than rushing to judgment.