Human Cloning: Right or Wrong - Essay Example

Human Cloning: Right or Wrong? The “Chambers Dictionary” defines cloning as “(n) a group of two ormore individuals with identical genetic makeup derived, by sexual reproduction, from a single common parent or ancestor, (orig) applied to plants, but later applied much more widely; any of such individuals; a person or thing closely similar to another, a copy or replica. To reproduce as a clone; to produce a clone or clones of …” (Haran 14) This gave rise to several concerns and research in the field and led to one discovery and another, especially ever since the scientists started taking interest in the birth of Dolly the sheep in 1997 (Galton 353).

This was done through nuclear substitution, a method besides cell mass division or “embryo splitting” which is the only method applied on humans. Humans have been attempted to have been cloned for the purpose of reproduction or experimental reasons. However this is considered an unworthy means to bring more humans to life because those in favor of human cloning fail to respect the early stage of human growth which directly questions human dignity. In a situation where a person is informed that he is cloned he will instantly undergo a phase of shock after which he will question what exactly “clone” means.

He will confront a piece of knowledge that he might be a group or clone of “genetically identical individuals”. This will raise curiosity in him to seek out for his identical triplets or more. He might also confront the issue of whether this was morally correct to clone him or whether there are any side-effects that he might have to face in the long run (MacKinnon 1). With the coming of Dolly the cloned sheep things changed in the human world. Until then, cloning was just used as a tool of science fiction but now it has changed many things.

Dolly was cloned from an adult sheep’s cells. This was a revolutionary event but it was simultaneously encapsulated with fear and horror. Hence cloning of human beings was immediately condemned by politicians and religious bodies alike (MacKinnon 2). Had the technology been restricted and human beings could freely enjoy the joys of nature, cloning might have seemed as a reasonable solution to many problems. Since cloning gives birth to the fear that maybe such humans cannot feel the connection with the existence of faith, and mankind will solely be responsible for causing such cataclysm.

Cloning denies woman a chance to have a child that she has always wished for. Cloning has never been justified under any circumstance. The Abrahamic faiths suffice by understanding that no human is available as an instrument or experimentation because God created man out of love and compassion and thus he is morally and spiritually bound to Him (Cole-Turner, 36). Primarily it is the duplication of a large area of genomes which gave rise to many questions on human dignity. If human clones were to be made for the only purpose of spare cell lines then it would contradict Kantian principle of human dignity which demands that human life must be thought of as a means as well as an end (Harris, 355).

Cloning is the multiplying of genomes which gives birth to identical individuals who are unaware of the natural surrounding as perceived by a child born through a proper channel. Science has however made fiction so real that it is feared that a time will come when people will consider cloning as a natural and the only process by which humans can come to life. This is an indirect means to defy God’s existence. No compelling reasons have been established to make human cloning as an acceptable act of revolution in human history.

No one can claim that the technique used for Dolly’s creation could ever be beneficial or safe to be used on humans. Hence John Harris formally says “Goodbye Dolly” in a rather comprehensive and indefinite way leaving the loopholes where they have been left by the scientists. The concept of human cloning can be regarded as ethically incorrect as long as human dignity needs to be kept intact by sanity. There is no way that the religious body can ever allow this to be become a common practice among humans as a revolutionary work.

Hence steps are being taken to ensure that the principle of human dignity is not violated under any circumstances. Animal cloning is considered to be flexible as compared to human cloning because it naturally becomes beneficial for the survival of human race. Works Cited Cole-Turner, Ronald. Human Cloning: Religious Responses. Louisville, Ky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997. Print. Galton, Professor D. J, and Professor L. Doyal. "“goodbye Dolly?” the Ethics of Human Cloning." Journal of Medical Ethics. 24.9804 (1998). Print. Haran, Joan.

 Human Cloning in the Media: From Science Fiction to Science Practice. London: Routledge, 2008. Print. MacKinnon, Barbara. Human Cloning: Science, Ethics, and Public Policy. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2000. Print.