Download Clones

The Potential Dangers of Human Cloning
Clones. What comes to mind when we think of them? Nowadays most people think of
their favorite version of the portrayal of a clone in a science fiction movie or novel. But what if,
human reproductive cloning were to one day be legalized so that it became a commonplace thing
to have a clone made of oneself? What would be the consequences if such a powerful technique
could be made available to the general public? I would argue that the negative repercussions of
such a technology greatly outweigh the good that could come from it.
The online article, “About Reproductive Cloning”, defines human reproductive cloning
as “the production of a genetic duplicate of an existing organism. A human clone would be a
genetic copy of an existing person.”
In his article, “Narcissus Cloned”, John J. Conley argues that “Cloning’s infringements
on the basic goods of love, life, and otherness ultimately challenges human dignity itself” (16).
Meaning that if human cloning is legalized people may start to take for the granted the
characteristics that define us. Processes that we believed to be divine and unalterable could be
manipulated such as biological death and the moment of child conception. Proponents of
cloning would argue that the key word here is “biological” because cloning someone can
probably never bring back their personalities. This is completely true but take for example a
person that wants to clone their dead daughter to give her biological body another chance at life.
As much as the mother of the dead child convinces herself that she is cloning the child for
objective reasons it is probably true that subconsciously she still believes there is a chance that
her daughter will be brought back. Although laws could be created to only allow infertile couples
to use cloning, chances are that if it is legalized these emotionally unstable parents could also
gain access to the technology. Such a “technological leak” could one day bring about clones
being created for the very purpose of carrying out their genetic parent’s unfinished lives.
Conley also brings up the point that “Widespread cloning would reduce human to
eugenic means” (16). Legalizing cloning would eventually lead to each human being looked at
only for their genetic material so as to make the “perfect” clone. Each human would be admired
for their genetic traits rather than for the person that they are. This kind of society would cause
prejudices because people without the admired genetic make-up would be considered inferior
additions to our species. Some may argue that this idea is far-fetched and unlikely to happen
anytime soon, but we need to consider the far future in this debate as well. If cloning becomes
legalized we need to think about what would happen in another two hundred years when the
process would have become more routine.
Our species may suffer from reduced genetic variety if one day cloning leads to parents’
being able to pick out their child’s features. Lee M. Silver, author of “Jennifer and Rachel”,
argues that “even if human cloning became efficient, legal, and popular among those in the
moneyed classes… it would still only account for a fraction…of all the children born onto this
earth.” (14). Agreed that this will be true for a long period of time after cloning is first legalized
but years and years afterwards, people will begin to take for granted the evils of cloning. As
Charles Krauthammer says in his article, “Crossing Lines: A Secular Argument Against
Research Cloning”, “once you start tearing apart blastocysts (embryos in this case), you get used
to tearing apart blastocysts.” (19). It is during this future time period (when we don’t pause for a
second before tearing apart an embryo) our species may turn around and blame ancestors (our
generation) for legalizing human reproductive cloning.
Another major concern that arises with human reproductive cloning is the increased
possibility of “surreptitious cloning” (Silver, 14). If people start being cloned without their
knowledge of it, it could lead to immense confusion and even paranoia. People could begin to
use cloning as means to making money by cloning someone famous and fostering the same
talents and abilities as he/she so that eventually they can succeed in the same field as the original
did and earn as much or more money. The public would be amazed to see someone that looked
exactly like the original celebrity. In fact, the clone could probably make more money than the
genetic parent because the public would be more fascinated with the idea that this celebrity is
also a clone. Advocates of cloning would disagree that the same talents would filter down to
their clones however; it is likely someone could invest enough time and money into the making
sure the clone has the same talents in the hopes of eventually making a huge profit.
Another danger that arises with surreptitious cloning is the possibility of having more
than one clone of a person. What would stop people from creating more than one clone of a
person? If this were to happen it would be near impossible to differentiate between all of them.
Once again, this could result in identity theft and other unimaginable crimes. Even though some
people would argue that laws could be put into place to prevent surreptitious cloning, the saying
goes that rules are meant to be broken. For example a law in California states that all drivers
must use a hands-free device in order to be able to talk while driving. Even though, this law was
passed with a fine in place for people who break the rule there are still people everyday who
don’t follow this law. In fact, the governor’s own wife was caught using a cell phone without a
hands-free device.
In addition to all the things that could go wrong in society if cloning were to be legalized
it is important to think about the clone itself. The online article, “Reproductive Cloning
Arguments Pro and Con”, states that something like 95% percent of cloning experiments on
animals have resulted in miscarriages, stillbirths, or birth defects. If these are the odds when
animals are cloned it is disheartening to think of what would happen if we were to clone humans
- a much more genetically complex species. Given that all medical technology has risks
associated with it, but those risks pertain only to the individual utilizing the technology. The
risks that could come with human reproductive cloning could involve all of society. For instance
if something wrong goes unnoticed in the cloning process scientists may create a species slightly
different from humans. If this were to result then various ethical questions would arise. Should
the clone be put down even though it is a living creature or should it be left alone to possibly
reproduce with other humans and continue its species? On the one hand it is inhumane to kill a
living creature but on the other hand such a species could possibly be dangerous to our genetic
pool.
Although there are definite benefits for infertile couples that could result from human
reproductive cloning, it is not justified to allow such a technology to be legalized just because of
the small amount of individuals that cannot be helped by other modern technologies such as in
vitro fertilization. Although rules and regulations would be put in place if such a technology
were to be legalized, the chances are that someone would eventually break these laws and put not
only the clone at great risk but possibly society in general. The dangers associated with such a
technology greatly outnumber the benefits.
Works Cited
“About Reproductive Cloning.” Genetics and Society. Oct. 2009.
<http://www.geneticsandsociety.org/article.php?list=type&type=16>.
Conley, John J. “Narcissus Cloned.” Kennedy and Kennedy. 347-50.
Kennedy, Mary Lynch, and William J. Kennedy. Writing in the Disciplines: A Reader and
Rhetoric for Academic Writers. 6th ed. New Jersey: Pearson-Prentice Hall, 2008. Print.
Krauthammer, Charles. “Crossing Lines: A Secular Argument Against Research Cloning.”
Kennedy and Kennedy. 353-359.
“Reproductive Cloning Arguments Pro and Con.” Genetics and Society. May 2006. Oct. 2009.
<http://www.geneticsandsociety.org/article.php?id=282>.
Silver, Lee. “Jennifer and Rachel.” Kennedy and Kennedy. 340-346.