Human Cloning is Unacceptable Until its Dangers are Addressed
In a laboratory, human cloning is the process of producing a genetically identical human being. The aforementioned is a synthetic procedure that is carried out in conjunction with stem cell research and biotechnology. As a consequence of reproductive cloning, human clones will be produced. As noted by Jain in his paper “Human Cloning: Ethical Issues & Legal Implications,” for many years now and since Dolly arrived, animal cloning has occurred, sheep cloning has raised to the top of the list of scientists’ priority research projects (37). The practice of reproductive cloning is fraught with controversy, and it is outlawed in many nations, including the Americas (Jain 40). Whether human cloning should be allowed or banned within the bio-research community is a subject of discussion. It is available in numerous points of view, both in support and against the practice. In the same way that human cloning provides both potential advantages, each coin has two sides and drawbacks for the whole human species. In the choice to legalize human cloning, there are many factors to consider, and a careful assessment of the flaws would reveal the limitations of human cloning.
The legalization of human cloning needs to be avoided. It is not acceptable to legalize human cloning. This can be backed by various factors, including psychological and physiological justifications, ethical, environmental, social, and lawful concerns that the whole of the human race will confront if the practice is made legal. As is apparent, only a small number of scientists are eager to begin experiments in human cloning. Once authorized, human cloning would be put through its paces, resulting in the death of hundreds of embryos every day.
If human cloning is authorized and widely performed, hospitals will soon be crowded with infants born with genetic birth abnormalities. The infants will need respirators due to malformed or dysfunctional lungs and hearts. Brain injury is frequent in infants, and babies cannot suck, and they need to be nourished through feeding tubes. Otherwise, the infants will be severely malformed. Children who look normal on the outside may have autism, epilepsy, or other genetic disorders. As per Rastogi and Ankita in their paper “Ethical Issues in Cloning,” the data on cloning animals significantly concerns infant death, and also, many cloned animals have debilitating congenital disabilities (996).
The professionals who support human cloning are, however, dubious about their preparedness to do it. The primary argument opposing human cloning is because research is currently being conducted on the reprogramming needed for effective embryo formation (Rastogi and Ankita, 996). Scientists implant the cell DNA of adults in dozens of eggs and provide electric shocks necessary for the development of embryos in animal cloning. For example, of all the eggs produced to pass through the procedure, just 2 percent are usually made by the embryo. The percentage of healthy living infants is thus, as is apparent, limited. Also, cloning may impair a human gene pool and have permanent detrimental consequences on cell genetic structure.
On the other hand, it is argued that the legalization of human cloning is necessary. According to Potapchuk et al. in their paper “The Right to Clone: Some Aspects of the Contemporary Discourse, ” human cloning is a phenomenon that may alter the fate of any living person. When it is possible that many organ donors and no human being are to die from renal failure, the sense of comfort extends over all areas (Potapchuk et al. 598). As per Potapchuk et al., cancer is curable since many individuals around whom the tests may be carried out to find cancer treatment because it’s still the most feared illness (597). The clones of males who are produced to fulfill the need to be a donor or a test object are those who become the subject of investigations. Human cloning would allow scientists to solve the mysteries of DNA and other biological processes to liberate the whole human race from all illnesses and infirmities, given the availability of extensive experimental materials. This treatment would improve people’s quality of life.
In addition, human cloning should open the door for numerous critical medical advances. The embryos utilized as test objects are live organisms and are solely designed for testing and experimentation. The use of living sources for testing is not immoral because the deterioration of human life is not involved. The importance of human life is always the same, and these embryos are utilized to improve the quality of life and heal individuals from fatal paralytic illnesses. As noted by Ehiemua and Lateef in their paper “Legalizing Same Sex Marriage and Cloning: A Need for Ethical Consideration,” this is not justified and is simply an obstacle to the growth of human life (89). The emotional connection towards these lives and the prohibition on cloning based on unethical murders of human beings. People with immoral and moral reasons for considering human cloning must learn likewise to voice the same opinion on miscarriages and the termination of pregnancies. Human cloning is a direct result of stem cell research and is entirely legal dedicated to ethics.
Human cloning would also help individuals suffering a medical tragedy, such as a kidney survivor who needs breakthrough therapy and many more (Ehiemua and Lateef, 88). The use of human clones would also be helpful. The development of human cloning can cure all of these conditions. It would improve people’s lives. To combat fatal illnesses, people would profit immensely from this vital knowledge acquired from the cell pool of these specimens.
Further, why should countries prohibit cloning under the guise of being insecure and immoral if human cloning provides a reply to incurable illnesses? However, the primary argument in favor of human cloning is that it enables infertile couples to become parents. This does not support human cloning since an infertile couple may have children in a variety of ways. The current procedures have shown success, and this assertion is likewise not a severe issue for which human cloning may be supported. Cloning a lost kid will only show pain to the parents since the kid might be different but physically the same as his child. The parents must adapt to their cloned kid’s new needs, contributing to emotional turmoil.
Moreover, some illnesses are much more severe than infertility, such as cancer and down’s condition. Although it has been claimed that human cloning may provide revolutionary answers for curing these ailments, no study has shown this yet. Cure for these illnesses is also being researched, and human cloning might never be a quick success (Jain 40). Conversely, the embryos selected for testing are also alive and capable of developing into beautiful babies if given a chance. This would be analogous to testing a human infant. When the death of a natural infant for research purposes is deemed immoral, the killing of a human clone kid is considered unethical as well. The fact that cloned babies and embryos are plentiful does not justify experimentation on embryos (Potapchuk et al. 598).
When cloned kids are discovered with fatal defects, they are abandoned or killed like animal newborns, and the mother and father have no objections, and the law permits this. This never seems to be a realistic or acceptable statement. When infants with fatal defects are born, they remain with their parents, causing much more significant mental distress than being infertile and childless.
Environmental activists are accurate in asserting that human cloning would destabilize the ecosystem, as the demographic would expand to include clones generated for any reason. Also, either the ruling party had to respond with force to regulate the features of human cloning formation, or the process would be exploited to the point where each person would have one clone (Potapchuk et al. 598). For instance, a human clone of the kidney is created, and human clone kidneys are widely available. Leaving aside natural causes of renal failure, almost 40 percent of kidney failure occurs due to alcohol use. Consider human nature; if a person learns that a kidney can be readily replaced, the value placed on the kidney diminishes, and liquor use increases. As a result, the easy availability of organs and the ease with which a person may be replaced would reduce the value placed on human life.
In summary, while human cloning opens up enormous possibilities for human advancement, it also presents significant difficulties to the human species. These obstacles must be overcome before human cloning may be allowed. However, consensus on the future of human participation would be challenging to achieve. The objections against human cloning are not religious but rather entail ethical concerns and the dangers involved. Therefore, human cloning must not be allowed until such risks are addressed sufficiently and society can adapt to such transformations.
