Should Cloning Be Banned Completely, Regulated, or Fully Legal? Essay Example

immoral is similar to saying that test-tubes babies are unethical as well.A test-tube baby is a baby that is developed from an egg that is fertilized outside the body and then implanted in the uterus of the surrogate mother. Similarly, a clone would be a baby that is also developed from an unfertilized egg outside the mother’s body.

Therefore, calling either one an immoral child is labeling every unconventional reproduction unethical. The writer is correct when he indicated that it has been more than twenty years since the birth of first test-tubes was performed, and if that particular artificial child was accepted in society, why can’t clones be? Defense 3). Our society has generally valued individual privacy, and therefore basic rights to control one’s body for the process of reproduction should also be respected. Moreover, I deem similar view as in the writer’s saying that “cloning should not be left to run free” (Defense 4). The writer means that there should be strict regulations and policies over the usage of cloning.

I agree with the writer that we should however strictly regulate the technology to prevent it from being abused.Cloning in order to have children should not turn into designing a baby, since this would eliminate genetic diversity. It should however be strictly monitored to see for what purpose the child is being cloned for. Moreover, the new cloned child and the parents’ identity should be confidential.

There should not be a leak of information about their decision, due to the reason that people might judge their decisions reprehensively. Furthermore, cloning is also extremely practical because it sheds insight on the complex predicament of incurable

problems that we are facing in today’s world.The donated organs that are transplanted into the patient’s body also usually have a higher chance of being rejected. Not only that, many patients with implanted organs suffer from side effects of the medicines they have to take to make sure their body accepts the organs. Due to these side effects, the quality of their life lessens.

With embryonic stem cells being harvested, it would be possible to grow organs or even tissues that would be similar to the patient’s genes. This would nullify the chances of the organs being rejected, and the patients would live a healthier life.Many patients today are in desperate need of organs; however, due to the limited amount of availability of donated organs, the patients die. I believe that it should be regarded as a crime if we have the ability to manufacture an organ, but we refuse to do so due to the oppositions on cloning.

In his article, “Cloning: A Cautious Defense”, Daily Egyptian writes that it is possible to clone headless human bodies, and their organs could be utilized for organ transplants (3). According to the writer, headless bodies would be created solely for the purpose of utilizing their organs for implantation.With these artificial organs, many patients would be rescued from dying, and numerous health problems would be resolved. Recent studies have shown that if cloning leads to better understanding of cell differentiation, we can cure some of the major health problems, such as cancer.

Moreover, it would even be possible to clone skin tissues for the burn victims from their own skin cells. This would also abolish the current

method of cutting the skin from a less significant part of the body and using it on the burnt area.Hence, not only cloning would be valuable, but the pain that the patient has to go through would be nullified. I believe that this technique should not be labeled “narcissism”, as Krauthammer would call it (2). I disagree with Krauthammer because cloning to protect one’s life is not narcissistic.

Everyone has the fundamental right to enhance their life, and it should not be considered immoral to clone an organ for the sake of the patient’s well-being. For example, a child’s whole life is depended upon his parents, and if one of them has some problem e. . a kidney failure, it is not narcissistic to implant an organ from a headless body to protect the parent and their family.

For this reason, the practice of cloning would help in studying the human genome, and medical problems would be resolved. Likewise, there are further more advantages to cloning other than for medical purposes. A clone would be an individual person with his/her own individual consciousness. Although, the clone’s genes would be similar to the donors, however his traits would not be.However, Zabuldoff argues that there is no apparent need to clone because there is no such thing as exact copy of human. He says, “we are each a half-clone”, our genes might be same, but our emotions and temperament cannot be identical to each other (2).

I believe that arguing that since the clone’s traits would not be similar, the human should not be called a clone, is completely unrelated and extraneous argument. We are in need

of the genes to be similar to further the medical investigation, not the clone’s mannerism.The fact that the clone would have individual trait should be considered as a beneficial point because it means that the clone would have its uniqueness, and would not be abused by some other ‘real’ person. The clone would have its individual soul, and simultaneously his different life experience would make him entity from the donor.

Furthermore, not only human cloning but animal cloning is also very useful. Cloning is advantageous in bringing back the population of endangered species. Cloning species like pandas would help in protecting their population, and our next generations would also be able to enjoy the beauty of these creatures.If we do not protect these endangered species, we would take away what might be the last chance for their survival. Otherwise the evolution would impede, and our dreams of learning more about the universe would vanish.

Even more, some of these animal products such as milk from the cow are what the humans depend upon; their extinction would result in our loss as well. Hence, cloning would not only assist in protecting the endangered species, but would also be a benefit for human health. Lastly, the opposition believes that cloning is against God’s will.Writers like Barbara Kingsolver from the book “Points of Departure”, writes in her article, called “A Fist in the Eyes of God”, that genetic engineers have started to play like God. She discusses that if God did not intend to clone, it should not be done, however, she fails to prove the benefits of cloning for medical purposes. This reasoning is very illogical, because

mankind is already playing God when the doctors cure the disease, and when the scientists create nuclear energy, or use any other technology.

Cloning is a very controversial topic, and therefore many writers have different views on the usage of this technology.Although different people may have different views on it; nonetheless I believe that this technology is very efficient in today’s world, especially for the purpose of medical research. The practice of cloning would help the scientists to investigate the human genome in order to obliterate the disorders and diseases that we humans are facing today. It would also be extremely valuable for the parents who are incapable of having a child, and furthermore that child would live to have his/her own individuality and independence just like any other human.

Therefore, cloning should be practiced but with regulations, and should not be banned because of some erroneous decisions. Works Cited “Cloning: A Cautious Defense. ” Daily Egyptian 15 Jan 1998: 12. Genetics Encores: The Ethics of Human Cloning. May 2006. Institute for philosophy and Public Policy.

15 March 2008 <http://www. paudf. umd. edu/IPPP/Fall 97 Report/Cloning.

htm>. Kingsolver, Barbara. Small Wonders. New York: HarperCollins, 2002. Krauthammer, Charles.

“Of Headless Mice And Men. ” Time Magazine Jan. 1998: 20-25. Zabludoff, Marc. “Fear and Longing.

” America Now Feb. 1998: 9-11.