Paper on Cloning Is Ethically And Morally Wrong

This essay has a total of 1013 words and 4 pages.

Cloning Is Ethically And Morally Wrong

The question shakes us all to our very souls. For humans to consider the cloning of one
another forces them all to question the very concepts of right and wrong that make them
all human. The cloning of any species, whether they be human or non-human, is ethically
and morally wrong. Scientists and ethicists alike have debated the implications of human
and non-human cloning extensively since 1997 when scientists at the Roslin Institute in
Scotland produced Dolly. No direct conclusions have been drawn, but compelling arguments
state that cloning of both human and non-human species results in harmful physical and
psychological effects on both groups. The following issues dealing with cloning and its
ethical and moral implications will be addressed: cloning of human beings would result in
severe psychological effects in the cloned child, and that the cloning of non-human
species subjects them to unethical or moral treatment for human needs.


The possible physical damage that could be done if human cloning became a reality is
obvious when one looks at the sheer loss of life that occurred before the birth of Dolly.
Less than ten percent of the initial transfers survive to be healthy creatures. There were
277 trial implants of nuclei. Nineteen of those 277 were deemed healthy while the others
were discarded. Five of those nineteen survived, but four of them died within ten days of
birth of sever abnormalities. Dolly was the only one to survive (Fact: Adler 1996). If
those nuclei were human, "the cellular body count would look like sheer carnage" (Logic:
Kluger 1997). Even Ian Wilmut, one of the scientists accredited with the cloning
phenomenon at the Roslin Institute agrees, "the more you interfere with reproduction, the
more danger there is of things going wrong" (Expert Opinion). The psychological effects of
cloning are less obvious, but none the less, very plausible. In addition to physical
harms, there! are worries about the psychological harms on cloned human children. One of
those harms is the loss of identity, or sense of uniqueness and individuality. Many argue
that cloning crates serious issues of identity and individuality and forces humans to
consider the definition of self. Gilbert Meilaender commented on the importance of genetic
uniqueness not only to the child but to the parent as well when he appeared before the
National Bioethics Advisory Commission on March 13, 1997. He states that "children begin
with a kind of genetic independence of [the parent]. They replicate neither their father
nor their mother. That is a reminder of the independence that [the parent] must eventually
grant them...To lose even in principle this sense of the child as a gift will not be good
for the children" (Expert Opinion). Others look souly at the child, like philosopher Hans
Jonas. He suggests that humans have an inherent "right to ignorance" or a quality of
"separateness." Hum! an cloning, in which there is a time gap between the beginning of the
lives of the earlier and later twin, is fundamentally different from homozygous twins that
are born at the same time and have a simultaneous beginning of their lives. Ignorance of
the effect of one's genes on one's future is necessary for the spontaneous construction of
life and self (Jonas 1974). Human cloning is obviously damaging to both the family of and
the cloned child. It is harder to convince that non-human cloning is wrong and unethical,
but it is just the same. The cloning of a non-human species subjects them to unethical
treatment purely for human needs (Expert Opinion: Price 97). Western culture and tradition
Continues for 2 more pages >>