The temptation to improve the race of man is a strong one. Genocides are attempts to eliminate a certain race to leave only the “pure” races left; you see it in World War II with Hitler and the Holocaust, in Rwanda in 1994, and today, in Darfur (where the Janjaweed are attempting to destroy all non-Arab populations in the region), in Burma, in the Congo. This temptation is likely to arise again if we are to clone humans. Though these genocides are racially-based, who’s to say this won’t happen when it’s a different kind of human versus the human we know today? If the possibility to chose the traits, and therefore genes, of a person is there, then why not make the person genetically perfect? Why not clone someone who is superbly fit, handsome, smart, and strong? This would inevitably lead to tensions between the cloned super-humans and the natural race of man. Genocide, war, and a monumental alteration of mankind would be on the horizon if cloning man became a reality.
Aside from the threat of creating the perfect human and, possibly creating a disastrous shift in the race of mankind, cloning is not in the best interest of the cloned individual. The person could be treated like a product, a recreation of the person it has been cloned from. If genes are changed and chosen to create a super-human with perfect genes, they become a craft of the person deciding these alterations. And if the clone is created solely for its organs to be used in the person it’s been cloned from, then that is a waste of a precious life; there are other ways for people to receive transplants without creating life and then killing it. The cloned animals that have been experimented with have often had health problems develop during the first few years of their life. According to the Human Genome Project Information website, the animals that have been cloned have often had “compromised immune function and higher rates of infection, [and] tumor growth.” They tend to be born normal, but then die within a few years, sometimes for no apparent reason. At this point, the side effects of cloning are not fully understood. Too many lives are already cut short by natural illnesses; why create a person who we know could die young?
An embryo is life. It is the first step in the process of man, just as aging from child to teen to man are also steps. The embryo is going to become life, unless something stops this natural process from occurring; therefore, killing it is murder. Life occurs at conception; the union is made of living cells. Life cannot come from non-life. Therefore, the living sperm and egg cells that unite to create an embryo are living. If they are living and they are from humans and going to become humans, they are human beings. Just because a day-old infant isn’t full-grown or doesn’t have its adult teeth or even baby teeth doesn’t mean it isn’t a human being. Just because someone’s brain isn’t fully developed or their arm never fully developed doesn’t mean they aren’t human beings. An embryo is a human being who hasn’t fully developed yet. To say it isn’t a human being is absurd. What would it be besides a human being?
With that said, therapeutic cloning poses a difficult question. Is killing the embryonic human to create a new kidney for someone who's dying wrong? Do we kill the human embryo to save the person with failing kidneys? Killing an embryo to use its cells is still killing a human being. And who's to say this cloned kidney won't fail within a few years along with the rest of the things that have been cloned?
There is something to be said for how things work in nature. The way processes occur and the way in which life is created happen in such a way because it is how nature intended it to be. Altering this can have enormous effects on the world. Even altering these processes in subtle ways can have disastrous results. If man begins cloning endangered species to make up for those who have died at the hand of man, we may start to think that we can continue to destroy ecosystems and habitats because we can always just clone the animals as they begin to die off. We can’t just treat the symptom and clone the endangered animals; we have to treat the problem and stop the reason that the animals are dying. It’s our fault that habitats are destroyed to fill the demand (that mankind seems to think is necessity) for larger homes, bigger buildings, and more, more, more. The destruction must stop; cloning is not the answer.
The dangers and problems with cloning are too great to be overlooked. Sure, cloning could save lives and having a dog that looks just like the one that just died would be great. But it’s a dangerous solution to problems that can be addressed in different ways, in ways that nature intended them to be solved. Some advocates for cloning say that “nature has given us this gift.” It’s just not true. Life gives us opportunities to do things and chances to create things, good and bad; it doesn’t always mean that we have been given a “gift.” Oftentimes, the crucial decisions that have moral and ethical implications are the ones that are better left to science fiction. The way life begins should not be toyed with. Cloning is wrong.
--
I was supposed to write one paragraph on whether I was pro or con cloning for my high school Biology class. I had to include whether or not I think an embryo is a human being. My teacher was a little surprised when she came by to stamp my essay-like "paragraph."
