The cloning of animals has been occurring from many years now in the advancement of time, the concept of human reproductive cloning has become a reality as with the breakthrough of biotechnology. Human reproductive cloning is a creation of an individual by nuclear transfer from existing human being to unnucleated ovum of another mammal that give rise to identical individual naturally or artificially. The child has born by this process that comes under new category of human being that is a clone of a person who cloned himself.
Some people thought that it is wrong to cloned human beings. It wrong to create an identical human being, this argument is dismissed by the other various arguments for human reproductive cloning for example if monozygotic twins exist in the world and it believe that clone is not the identical copy of the original person even in those conditions where clone has same set of genes because those clones developed in totally different conditions.
In this paper, I will discuss the ‘life in the shadow argument against human reproductive cloning as well opponent it. In the following paragraphs, I will lighten both sides of human reproductive cloning.
An argument stated above as human reproductive cloning is diminished the unique genetic makeup of an individual. Human procreative cloning itself wrong to create a copy of a human being. Cloning of somatic cells is not an issue at all but the issue raised in the genetic cell cloning. Cloning is a strong tendency make the interference from genotype to phenotype.
The argument is that the clone will be living ‘A life in the shadow’ of a person whose genes used to create a clone-he would not have life that was fully his or her own. A Clone grows up in the shadow of an original human being. At this point, his parents, friends and relatives recall his sibling’s intellectual achievements and his popularity, expected same from him. As a human child it has own feelings and capabilities, but society frequently scorned him just because he born as a clone. Morally, it is not necessarily that he would become an exact copy of his sibling. In this situation, clone child would react angrily by protesting that he should not be expected to live up to the expectations of relatives, friends and others.
Another argument against human cloning is safety of the procedure. There is not namely scientific basis for the argument that human reproductive cloning causes negligible incident of development abnormalities to human beings. In human procreative cloning, somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT)used as Assisted reproductive technology(ART) for having children. Reproductive SCNT is consider unethical because of the safety risks posed to a foetus and child. Also, child born with reproductive cloning would be denied the basic rights to born with diversity from randomly inherited DNA from mother and father. Ethically is not right because that child considers as biological child of one parent. This argument based on the basic human rights to have a genetic uniqueness.
Moreover, newborn human being is not a ‘commodity’ which can be created or destroyed even if they find out the development errors can be identified through diagnostic tools prior to birth. However, this argument addressing the technical aspects of the procedure but failed to undermine the morality of the procedure. It will decrease the overall value of human life, where parents would go for cloning in the hope of getting a perfect match to their desires.
In addition, One possible risk from human cloning is it could faster age of a clone. The older cells use to create an embryo, which can then create some premature aging issues and potentially even premature death. Also, this process is not natural way to create an embryo. So, its believe that this technique is ‘playing with God’. On ethical concern, it believes that interference with nature is decidedly wrong and it would lead to a domino effect. If this would happen genes will modified to create a human being who are smarter than others, then the average person will exist from a society. On the religious ethics ground people beliefs that man is not a creator and unauthorised person to make any changes in the natural thing, it is a controversial matter , where their opinions based on emotions or faith in God rather than any facts.
One foremost limitation s of human cloning is the ability to divide people, where in society clones will not treat as human beings. This would increase a gap between society as already there is social status race among people. Where human cloning would play a role to add fuel to the fire and enhance the society difference which will only cause more harm.
Human cloning would produce psychological depression and harm to a later twin
A notion of cloning raises issues about identity and individuality. In Gillon’s point of view, human cloning demoralizes the autonomy and individuality of the clone. According to him, cloning produces genetically identical people whom he/she was cloned. But this is not necessarily morally unacceptable. His argument relies on two major premises. Firstly, human cloning does not produce two genetically identical persons, only they have the same sets of genes. Secondly, genetic identity neither means nor entails personal identity. “He defends his position by asserting that everyone, including genetic twins, does not necessarily have the right to genetic identity”. It wrongs the living your life as a clone in the shadow of the original.
On the flip side, according to kitcher human reproductive cloning is a blessing for infertile couples. This process could offer new goal or hopes for infertile individuals or couples to have genetical identical child belongs to them, has been defended on the grounds of human wellbeing, personal and autonomy and satisfaction of the tendency to produce offspring. Due to this process infertile couples able to produce biological progeny related to them. Embryo might be cloned, either by nuclear transfer or embryo, splitting to enhance the chances of successful conception. While the moral right to conception open door makes a presumption that an individual should be permitted to pick the strategies for age that best serves their tendencies and needs, the benefits human cloning is to give a relief to infertile couple. Because in this large world adoption is not a solution to infertility
Moreover, human cloning prevents hereditary transmission of genetic harms to offspring, helps to avoid genetic diseases passes from parents such as if both parents are carrier of heritable disorder, where cloning might ensure them that your future child does not have the genetic disorder. Based on consequence ethical framework people can avoid bad consequences such as suffering, physiological pain. There are other techniques available which are less controversial that are IVF, PGD, embryo selection and embryo transfer where we can choice the embryo free of genetic disease but these techniques in some cases are not efficient where we not able to find embryo without disease. So, in that scenario they might use human procreative cloning. Morally it is acceptable if the cloning is for medical needs such as eliminate disease in offspring. but if they use donor gametes to avoid genetic disease the question might rise on ethical ground that is the offspring biological identical with the parents? Under human reproductive right framework, a person has right to having biological identical offspring. Also, biological parents care better their offspring than anyone else because they are emotionally attached with a newborn.
Also,in the sake of medical needs such as organ transplant or tissue match could be possible at less risk with human reproductive cloning. It also lowers the chances of transplant rejection by the host. But for human cloning specially for this purpose would amount to a form of insurance policy to enable treatment of certain medical needs. Sometimes medical needs are too urgent to permit waiting for cloning, gestation, and of course, for organ transplant they need development of the twin before tissue or organ transplant could be obtained. Such practice has been criticized on the ground floor that it treats the later twin not as a person valued and loved for his or her sake, simply in other words as a means for benefiting another, autonomous
According to American researchers in November 2001, they claimed to have produced the first cloned human embryos, but unfortunately, embryos reached only six-cell stage before they stopped dividing and died. The united states congress against human cloning that why they taken steps twice in 1998 and again in 2001-2002, with the house of representatives in July 2001, passing a strict ban on all human cloning, which includes human embryos production
Also, many other states have banned human cloning. Eventually, two major national reports have been issued on human reproductive cloning, one by the National Bioethics Advisory Commission) 1997, the other one by the National Academy of Sciences in January 2002. Reports from both NBAC and the NAS goes under further considerations of the ethical and social questions raised by cloning. In 1998, human cloning further became complicated when scientists were able to isolate embryonic stem cells the very first time. Most of the researchers believe that these versatile cells, capable to divide further to become any type of cells in the body, able to treat many chronic diseases and conditions.
It could be used for faster recovery from traumatic injuries. In some cases, for professional athletes who tore their ACLs, cloning of their own cells would decrease the recovery time and true healing could occur.
Other potential benefits to society of human cloning are savior clones. We can create an identical twin for medical needs like cells or organs that are non-essential for savior clone. At this position question raised about the future autonomy of the savior clone solely means that we just used it as a tool or instrument.
In conclusion, some ethical concern related to human cloning has until received bit serious and get careful attention.