Should Human Cloning Be Allowed Debate Philosophy Essay

Published: Last Edited:

This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.

One of today's most controversial question is, Should Human Cloning be Allow? Unfortunately, our society always seems to finds more inhumane and harsh ways to eradicate itself; it also seeks ways to escape that eradication through immortality. The issue at hand is should human cloning be allowed in a society that seeks immortality in the name of science. I believe cloning is an evolutionary dead end and the use of cloning techniques to make ideal human would ultimately devalue life. Therefore, "when people fear death, as most Christians do, the prospect of achieving immortality through the cloning process becomes provocative if not desirable (Sanders, 1974, p. 22)". Although science might compels us to seek a higher quality of human life, there are certain activities in the area of genetics and cloning that violate basic moral and ethical principles.

"While, social effects have increased the knowledge of human genetics and quite possibly have been speculated about and studied more than those of any ongoing social change in history (Greely, 1998, p. 474)". While most of society understands the curiosity around knowing how humans work, along with the need to know about DNA, to eliminate many hereditary illnesses and disabilities. There are still those "ranging from the United States President to the proletariat have trumpeted the "immorality" of cloning, and research funding within the areas of animal and/or human cloning has been reduced or blocked in numerous countries and states (Rollin, 1999, p. 52)". As most people condemn the idea of this in animals, it is more so appalling for humans. At what point would the experiments stop if we allow them to continue, and who will set the boundaries. People have different characteristics, which set them apart from each other, these traits range from illnesses and disabilities, which are all part of life regardless of how we feel. I am sorry but scientists could better serve society as advisers, than as decision makers and leave it up to society to determine what is right and wrong. The fact that cloning humans is about creating a genetically indistinguishable copy of a previously existing or existing person is in my opinion wrong on all accounts.


I might add that while there are those for cloning and have established many positive arguments concerning the copying of human DNA, such as developing new medicines for cures. They also believe that one day this research could put an end to some hereditary diseases and disorders, as well as allowing infertile parents to produce children with their own DNA. Finally and most importantly a few scientists have suggested extending the ageing process all together through the cloning process.

Even though there are many encouraging factors about cloning human embryos, there is always another side that raises many issues against the process. "In a Time/CNN opinion poll of only 500 adult Americans, "fewer than 1 in 5 Americans think human cloning should be allowed to continue. Fifty-eight percent of the participants in the poll believed it is morally wrong to clone humans and sixty-three percent say it is against God's will (Battaglia, 1995, p. 675)". Many religions organizations disagree with the tampering of human life; because it goes against their beliefs and argue that it is immoral. For instance, if perfected many people may turn to this method of conceiving unnaturally, in order to create the perfect son or daughter, which some may consider an unnatural birth. Many have argued that an embryo is indeed a human life, and if damaged during the cloning process, there is the possibility killing it. Therefore, making the practice of embryo cloning, an immoral procedure. "Twenty years ago gene function was unknown; today we have the genetic dictionary that deciphers the code of life. Even more recent has been the application of this knowledge to our own species (Nagle, 1972, p. 372)". While cloning is still considered to be in the early stages of research, and all the pros and cons contradicting each other, the main question is, should we allow human cloning in the name of science and take a chance at destroying the genetic cycle of humanity?

The two main types of cloning that have caused ethical controversies around the world are embryo and reproductive cloning. Embryo cloning being the process that duplicates the procedure found in nature to produce twins, while reproductive cloning is a method where they extract the DNA from an ovum and replace it with the DNA extracted from a cell of an adult, therefore producing a copy of an existing person. Based on research done on animals, the results normally end with the subjects being born with severe inherent defects making it a profoundly unethical and immoral procedure for humans.

At any stage of human cloning, there is no agreement concerning the ethical issues that arise by the process of destroying human embryos. Given that this procedure is somewhat comparable to traditional conception and because both methods create a pre-embryo, the question that still arises, is the pre-embryo is a human being?

Many people have the opinion that an embryo in its early stage does not require any particular moral consideration, "yet throughout Hebrew and Christian history, it is taught that what it means to be human as a person and as a people can be fully known only in reference to God (Cole-Turner, 1992, p. 162)". However, there are still those that believe the embryonic cells at this stage are not equivalent to human beings because it lacks self-awareness of its environment. This simply implies that the embryo attains human form much later in development, maybe at the point when the brain develops and the embryo becomes aware of itself. Even though genetic research and cloning offers an opportunity to cure disease and allows infertile couples the possibility of having children, there is another side to this whole argument. "For instance, imagine if cloning was used for the general improvement of the population, meaning collecting donor eggs and sperms from selected females and males to increase the probability of a genetically superior species. If this is unacceptable for us, what do we do if some other nation, such as our "enemy," begins such a eugenic program (Nagle, 1972, p. 376)"?

Many people remember the physician who substituted his sperm for the husbands to created children that were the doctor's and not that of the husband. In an unscientific and unethical manner, he was using the couples to bear his children and to pay their rearing expenses. As a result, he was using science to manipulate couples to his own distorted sense of importance. Media coverage continues to suggest that the only ethical dispute is over the issue of destroying embryos, when in reality there is an unethical risk to a women's health, leaving the only one conclusion, it is unethical for both the mother and child. Therefore, when it comes to cloning humans, I believe we are playing on dangerous grounds, which are unethical and immoral to the human race as a whole.

Still society continues to face the question, should we allow human cloning in the name of science. Unfortunately, many people find this to be a tough question to answer; believing there really is no right answers. Throughout all of the research already done, all we find is a lot of mixed opinions and emotions to consider. While, everybody has their own opinions about cloning, and I can see where it is difficult to determine right and wrong from the issues they have raised, both positive and negative.


The idea behind human cloning to discover new medicines and possible cures for hereditary diseases and illnesses, or at least create a decrease in the number, is the main cause of mixed emotions. For instance, I believe that everybody has his or her time, and the idea of human cloning to obtain a longer life is absurd.

Looking at all of the negatives issues, I see a strong argument on the religious and moral sides. However, I suppose this would not affect everybody, being our society is on the decline when it comes to morals. While cloning for infertile parents may seem like a decent thing to do, it still poses a question concerning children that are in need of a good home. To me adoption would be a good moral decision on the part of the adopting parents.

Although, cloning human embryos is still in the early stages of development it still has a long way to go before discovering the whole concept. There is one thing for sure; cloning human embryos will continue, only stopping when the government takes over and demands they put an end to the whole procedure. Despite the strong arguments and looking into the future, "the commotion generated by the success of mammal cloning technology, applicable to man, highlights the fact that experimental science can raise, at least for certain people, a genuine ethical problem (Lavelle, 2005, p. 218)". This leaves society with the conclusion that cloning will become more and more common as our knowledge of science and embryo development increases. However, the question of whether to allow this type of human experiment will remain unanswered. I believe the part of society that has the strongest morals when it comes to human life will continue to argue that it is still immoral.. After all the fact remains that, certain activities in the area of genetics and cloning violate basic environmental and ethical principles. Therefore, immortality is something we have lived without and come to except through our morals and religious beliefs not some scientific experiment.

Although, I personally feel that embryo cloning should have never started in the first place, as pitiless as it may sound, the benefits of having this happen in order to stop further generations from suffering is definitely something many may consider. To think that this experimental behavior will create the perfect human is sad, because we will still have an imperfect world based on our immoral decisions. Even though there is a need for developing healthier cells for cancer treatment, achieving these results through cloning could potentially cause harm to an unborn child. As heartless as it may sound, I would prefer a child that had only mild disabilities, than one severely disabled because of the cloning process, or even worse, knowing that if it died from a cloning malfunction.

I also think that ethics and morals play a major role in determining when an embryo becomes a living being. My own view is that even though the embryo is in this early stage and attached to its mother, it is alive. Therefore, we need to respect the embryo for what it is, a human being at its early stages of development and take in to account that one day this living creature will someday say mom or dad, so in consideration of this, would it not be sad to use it for experimental purposes. Therefore, in conclusion the question of whether or not human cloning should continue will remain unanswered. The one thing for sure is that the scientific part of humanity will continue to find more appalling and destructive ways of annihilating itself and the moral part of humanity will find a way to escape that obliteration by seeking to improve the quality life through natural sources.