Ethical Issues of Human Cloning

Scientists, media outlets and even some people of faith endlessly debate the ethics of human cloning. Opponents view cloning as a completely unethical, unnatural creation of life. In addition, opponents believe scientists who create a duplicate life form completely contradicts nature. Contrarily, supporters view cloning as a step towards improving life, and as a chance to dictate nature. Supporters believe that, since humans naturally create life, humans also wield the power to improve life.

Embryo Cloning

• As Religious Tolerance explains, embryo cloning artificially splits an embryonic cell into two or three embryos, which forms twins or triplets. Religious Tolerance notes that supporters link greater understanding of miscarriages and better understanding of genetics as benefits for embryo cloning and research. Supporters also believe that women could have the number of children they want in one pregnancy, rather than multiple pregnancies. However, Religious Tolerance notes detractor's concerns with safety, as well as unnatural creation of life. Religious Tolerance suspects that embryos risk injury or even termination during the cloning procedure. Moreover, a cloned embryo is not a naturally-created embryo, and thus, the created being was not naturally conceived.

Reproductive Cloning

• Reproductive cloning specifically creates a copy of an existing life form. Religious Tolerance outlines the process of reproductive cloning, as the DNA of a life form is injected and replaces the ovum's DNA. A pregnancy results, and a replica of the original DNA is born. As Religious Tolerance explains, reproductive cloning has been experimented on animals, but is largely illegal and condemned in many countries. Religious Tolerance cites the resulting genetic defects from cloning as the reason for condemnation, and many medical practitioners regard human cloning as immoral.

Therapeutic Cloning

• Therapeutic cloning presents a significant ethical dilemma. As Religious Tolerance explains, therapeutic cloning replicates an organ. The cloned organ can replace an existing defective organ, or even replace the defective tissue of an organ. However, the replication of tissue or an entire organ is problematic. The replica is not naturally created, and simply replicating an organ without replicating the entire human is not guaranteed. If replicating an organ requires the complete replication of a human, then the replicated human only serves as a means to an end. Basing a being's entire existence on organ donation and experimentation is ethically questionable.

Playing God

• For some people of faith, opposition towards human cloning is about more than physical and psychological safety. As SRTP explains, some religious individuals view cloning as humanity assuming control over nature. The individual's religious doctrine specifies that God, and only God, has power over nature. According to the doctrine, God is responsible for creating life, and provided mankind with genetic diversity. As SRTP notes, cloning a human being completely contradicts the maintenance of diversity. The cloning process allows science and humans, rather than nature, to dictate genetics.

Relationships

• SRTP examines the impact of cloning on relationships, especially if a clone learns that he or she is a replica. SRTP admits that the psychological effects of a replica discovering their birth and replication are unknown. Due to humans not knowing the effects in advance, SRTP concludes that humans don't have the right to create the psychological risk. More importantly, cloning presents many physical risks for the mother, as well as the cloned human being. SRTP notes that sheep-cloning resulted in many pregnancy complications, as well as abnormalities in the cloned being. Therefore, humans cannot ethically and morally impose the physical risks on one another, and the unknown psychological effects are not worth the risk.