|
Arguments for …
Some people argue that cloning is the logical next step in reproductive technology.
Identical twins are natural clones, so reproductive cloning can be regarded as a technological version of a natural process.
If a couple are infertile, why shouldn’t they be able to produce clones of themselves? If a couple have lost a child,
why shouldn’t they be able to replace that loved individual with a clone if that is possible? Equally if someone has
made a great contribution to science, music, the arts or literature, it seems like a good idea to produce more of them in
the hope that we might benefit even more from what would effectively be a much longer working life. What is more, cloning
a child could produce a tissue match for treatment of a life-threatening disease
… and against
Others feel equally strongly that human cloning is completely wrong. With the
state of the science as it is at the moment it would involve hundreds of damaged pregnancies to achieve one single live cloned
baby. What is more, all the evidence suggests that clones are unhealthy and often have a number of built-in genetic defects
which lead to premature ageing and death. It would be completely wrong to bring a child into the world knowing that it was
extremely likely to be affected by problems like these. The dignity of human life and the genetic uniqueness we all have would
be attacked if cloning became common place. People might be cloned unwillingly – we all leave thousands if not millions
of cells around everyday as we go about our normal lives shedding skin! Who will control who gets cloned?
 |
|
Whatever your view, all the evidence is that a clone would not be identical to the original because it would have a different
womb environment and would be brought up differently. For example, it would be very bothersome to clone Elvis Presly and
find that the new version didn’t like singing!
|
|
